



















































































































































































































Copyright N?_ V 2. 

COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT. 




* 










I 






THE BOOKS OF 
EXODUS AND LEVITICUS 


AN INTERPRETATION OF 

THE ENGLISH BIBLE 


By B. H. CARROLL, D.D. 

The Book of Genesis 8vo, cloth, net $2.25 
The Books of Exodus and Leviticus 

8vo, cloth, net $2.25 

The Book of Revelation 8vo, cloth, net $1.75 

OTHER VOLUMES TO FOLLOW 

The President of the Southwestern Baptist Theo¬ 
logical Seminary presents in these volumes lectures de¬ 
livered in his classroom. They will be followed by 
others on different books of the Bible. Thousands 
who have been touched by his ministry, hundreds of 
students who have been influenced by his teaching, and 
many who have been helped by his writings will appre¬ 
ciate the opportunity to secure his comments on the 
Scripture. 






AN INTERPRETATION OF THE ENGLISH BIBLE 


THE BOOKS OF 

EXODUS 

AND 

LEVITICUS 


if 


BY 


B. v H.^ CARROLL, D.D., LL.D. 

s * 

President of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary 


Edited by J. B. CRANFILL, LL.D. 


/ 


o > 

9 ) «) 


New York Chicago Toronto 

Fleming H. Revell Company 

London and Edinburgh 



C e eel 





Copyright, 1913, by 
FLEMING H. REVELL COMPANY 



New York: 158 Fifth Avenue 

« 

Chicago: 125.«N.:Wabash Ave. 
Toronto: 25 jRi'ohmond St., W. 
London: 21 Paternoster Square 
Edinburgh: 100 Princes Street 



©CU33 7374 

4*4 f 








INTRODUCTION 


T HE events covered by the present volume group 
themselves around the life of Moses, who was 
one among the greatest of all the men who have 
ever lived and wrought. It is an open question as to 
whether Moses was not the very greatest man of ancient 
times. If we measure greatness by its propulsive power, 
we will count Moses the kingliest man of Old Testament 
times. As a leader, as a lawgiver, as a servant of God, 
as an administrator and as a writer, he takes first rank. 

The author of this work ascribes the authorship of the 
Pentateuch to Moses. He wastes no time in hypercritical 
disquisitions concerning the different “ documents/’ In 
' his own introduction, he brushes aside all of the skeptical 
suggestions of the higher critics and leaves the student 
where he began—reverently contemplating the work of 
God as revealed in the first five books of the Bible and 
as unfolded in the lives of Moses and those who com- 
panied with him. 

It is refreshing in these times of catchy phraseology 
and alluring scepticism to give to the world a work 
like this, which contains no uncertain teaching concerning 
the verity of the Christian faith. 

This volume is commended most sincerely to Bible 
students everywhere. It is rich and luminous in its in¬ 
terpretation of two of the most important books of the 
Bible. It gives a comprehensive analysis of the Deca¬ 
logue. It is adapted not only to continuous reading, but 


6 


INTRODUCTION 


will be especially useful in the theological classroom, in 
the Bible School and in the Sunday School. 

It is sent forth with the devout prayer that it may 
edify, encourage and inspire lovers of God and His Word 
wherever its pages shall be read. Together with its 
companion volumes, it forms the crowning work of one 
of the greatest interpreters of the Bible who has lived in 
our day, and in presenting the volume to the public, I 
trust that it may accomplish immediate and eternal good. 

J. B. Cranfill. 


Dallas, Texas. 


CONTENTS 

Introduction by J. B. Cranfill, LL. D.5 

THE BOOK OF EXODUS 

I. Introductory Studies: The Geography of Exodus ii 

II. Introductory Studies: Material for a History of 

Moses . Ig 

III. A Synoptical Review and a Prologue . . . 28 

Exodus I, 1-14 

IV. Birth and Preparation of Moses .... 41 

Exodus I, 15 — II, 22 

V. Moses at the Burning Bush .... 56 

Exodus II, 23 — V, 14 

VI. The Ten Plagues, or the Great Duel ... 67 

Exodus V, 15 — XII, 37 

VII. The Ten Plagues, or the Great Duel—Continued 79 

Exodus V, 15 — XII, 37 

VIII. The Institution of the Passover .... 89 

Exodus XII and XIII 

IX. The March out of Egypt; the Passage of the 

Red Sea and the Triumphal Song ... 99 

Exodus XIV, 1—XV, 21 

X. From the Red Sea to Sinai .no 

Exodus XV, 22 — XVI, 36 

XI. From the Red Sea to Sinai—Continued . .118 

Exodus XVII, 1—XVIII, 27 

XII. The Covenant at Sinai—Its General Features . 131 

Exodus XIX, 1—XXIV, 11 
7 


8 


CONTENTS 


XIII. 

XIV. 

XV. 

XVI. 

XVII. 

XVIII. 

XIX. 

XX. 
XXI. 

XXII. 

XXIII. 

XXIV. 

XXV. 

XXVI. 


The Covenant at Sinai—Continued . . 145 

Exodus XIX, i—.XXIV, 11 

The Decalogue—The First and Second Com¬ 
mandments .154 

Exodus XX, 1-6; Deuteronomy V, 6-10 

The Decalogue—The Third Commandment . 167 

Exodus XX, 7; Deuteronomy V, 11 

The Decalogue—The Fourth Commandment . 178 

Exodus XX, 8-11; Deuteronomy V, 12-15 


The Decalogue—The Fifth Commandment . 192 

Exodus XX, 12; Deuteronomy V, 16 

The Decalogue—The Sixth Commandment . 203 
Exodus XX, 13; Deuteronomy V, 17 


The Decalogue—The Seventh Commandment 219 
Exodus XX, 14; Deuteronomy V, 18 

The Decalogue—The Eighth Commandment . 234 
Exodus XX, 15; Deuteronomy V, 19 

The Decalogue—The Ninth Commandment . 247 
Exodus XX, 16; Deuteronomy V, 20 

The Decalogue—The Tenth Commandment . 257 

Exodus XX, 17; Deuteronomy V, 21 

The Law of the Altar.270 

Exodus XX, 18-26 

God and the State; The State and the Citi¬ 
zen; The Promises and the Ratification of 

the Covenant.283 

Exodus XXI, 1—XXIV, 8 


The Feast of the Covenant; The Ascent of 
Moses and Joshua into the Mountain; The 
Breach of the Covenant; The Covenant Re¬ 
stored but Modified. 

Exodus XXIV, 9—XXXIV, 35 

The Breach of the Covenant (Continued) 

and Its Renewal. 

Exodus XXXIII, 7 — XXXV, 3 


296 


312 


CONTENTS 


9 


XXVII. The Tabernacle.319 

Exodus, Chapters XXV — XXXI; XXXV 
—XL 


XXVIII. The Tabernacle—Continued .... 333 
Exodus, Chapters XXV — XXXI; XXXV 
—XL 


I. 

II. 

III. 

IV. 
V. 

VI. 

VII. 

VIII. 

IX. 

X. 


XI. 

XII. 


THE BOOK OF LEVITICUS 


Preparatory Studies—The Sinaitic Covenant 347 
Introductory Studies—Historical . . . 350 

Burnt-Offerings.361 

Leviticus, Chapters I—VII 

Consecration of Aaron and His Sons . . 374 

Leviticus, Chapters VIII—X 


The Great Day of Atonement . . . 384 

Leviticus, Chapter XVI 


The Distinction Between Clean and Unclean 397 
Leviticus, Chapters XI—XV 


The Law of Holiness.410 

Leviticus, Chapters XVII—XXII 

The Times of Coming Before the Lord . . 422 

Leviticus, Chapters XXIII and XXV; 
Numbers, Chapters XXVIII and XXIX 


The Land-Sabbath and the Jubilee Sabbath 432 
Exodus XXIII, 10, 11; Leviticus XXV, 1-7 


The Lamp of God; Bread of the Presence; 
Death of the Blasphemer; Penalties for 
Murder, and Great Law Principle . . 446 

Leviticus, Chapter XXIV 

The Promises and Threatenings of the 

Covenant.455 

Leviticus, Chapter XXVI 

Regulation of Vows.461 

Leviticus, Chapter XXVII 













I 


INTRODUCTORY STUDIES: THE 
GEOGRAPHY OF EXODUS 

F OCUS in your minds the geography of Egypt and 
the Sinaitic Peninsula. Those who have the 
Rand-McNally Bible Atlas can study the his¬ 
tory and geography together. If you were in a balloon 
over Egypt twenty miles in the air, you would see what 
looks like a green ribbon in the desert, which represents 
the Nile and its narrow boundaries, all of Egypt that 
has ever been good. Out of 115,000 square miles in 
Egypt only 9,000 are habitable, and only about 5,600 are 
made up of arable land. 

The lower part of Egypt is called the Delta, from the 
Greek letter which answers to our D, caused by the 
division of the Nile into several mouths. All of that 
Delta country is very rich from alluvial deposits made 
by the overflows of the Nile. The part on the east near 
the Arabian Peninsula was Goshen, where the children 
of Israel settled. The ancient capital, Memphis, was 
situated above the first fork, a famous city. Later, the 
capital was shifted to Thebes. 

Soon after the dispersion of the nations at the Tower 
of Babel, the sons of Ham occupied Egypt, the country 
given to them. Without the Nile there would be no 
Egypt. It is only a short distance from either bank 
to an impassable desert. Ancient history has to do 

11 


12 


EXODUS 


with Egypt from the city of Thebes to the mouth of 
the Nile. It knows nothing of upper Egypt. 

The White Nile rises in the heart of Central Africa, 
only recently discovered by Livingstone, Stanley and 
others. Just now a railroad runs up the Nile to Khar¬ 
toum, and from there to the heart of Africa. From 
Cape Town, the most southern point of Africa, a road 
starts and runs up. Only a short time from now that 
road will be completed, and Northern and Southern 
Africa will be united by rail. That was the great 
project of Cecil Rhodes, the Cape-Cairo railroad. The 
present capital of Egypt is Cairo. 

The first important event in this ancient history is 
the building of the Great Pyramid of Cheops. We know 
very little about the building of these pyramids, but they 
go back long before the time of Abraham, nearly to 
Nimrod. This pyramid is the most imposing structure 
of its kind in the world. It has a great square base, 
going up in terraces, so that a man standing on one 
stone can just reach the one above him. There are 
people there who hire out to pull visitors up from one 
stone to another. The pyramids constitute one of the 
seven wonders of the Ancient World, and constitute 
one of the wonders of the world to this day. They were 
supposed to be built as tombs, based upon the fact that 
the first time history became acquainted with them, 
there were in them the mummies of distinguished 
kings. From one of these great pyramids has been 
brought the very Pharaoh who received Joseph, and it 
is said in unwrapping that mummy they found a grain 
of wheat that had somehow got into the lining, and that 
when that grain of wheat was planted it grew. 

That building is said to be “ oriented,” because it 
was built exactly with the compass and with reference 


INTRODUCTORY STUDIES 


13 


to the east. If you ever join the Masons they will tell 
you a good deal about that. There is a hole in the pyra¬ 
mid, and once every two or three thousand years a star 
gets to a position in which it shines right down that hole 
to the very bottom. This indicates that those ancient 
people were marvellously well acquainted with astronomy. 
They could not have calculated the revolution of the 
heavenly bodies in such vast cycles of time and built with 
reference to it, if they had not been. 

This Great Pyramid must have been built by slave la¬ 
bour only, and at a great cost of life; all other structures 
of Egypt are of the same kind, very massive in style, 
with very little architectural beauty. Near the pyramids 
is another wonder of the world, the Sphinx, a winged 
lion with a man’s head. That has been largely covered 
with sand in the thousands of years of time, but a con¬ 
siderable part of it shows above the ground now. 

Who built these pyramids nobody knows. You can 
only get glimpses of that far-off time from certain in¬ 
scriptions, the deciphering of which is only a learned 
guess. There has been a vast deal discovered in modern 
times in the way of archaeology bearing upon Bible his¬ 
tory. Inscriptions have been deciphered, the names of 
kings and dynasties discovered, showing that the oldest 
nation in history is Egypt, and that it had a high grade 
of civilization of its kind. 

Two other things are necessary before taking up 
another feature of the discussion. One of these old 
kings fell upon a project that was new, now being uti¬ 
lized on the western plains of the United States to pro¬ 
vide for the surplus of water during the overflows. He 
had an immense excavation made, incredibly great, and 
canals dug that led from the Nile to that immense reser¬ 
voir, and when the overflow would come it would be 


14 


EXODUS 


filled with water. Then he had canals cut connecting 
the different branches, or mouths, of the Nile, traversing 
all the country for the purpose of irrigation. It was 
done by slave labour. In order to get the water out of the 
reservoir, they used big pumps worked by hand, having 
an endless chain with buckets upon it which worked like 
an undershot wheel. The ancient Egyptians had a won¬ 
derful knowledge of mathematics in all its departments. 
If you want to read a thrilling book that will give you 
the best idea of the degree of knowledge attained by the 
ancient Egyptians, read Tom Moore’s “ Epicurean,” con¬ 
cerning an Athenian youth who went to Egypt and was 
initiated into all the mysteries of the knowledge that they 
had there. It is written as a novel, but it is very true to 
nature. When I was a student of ancient history I had 
to read that book. G. M. Ebers has a great many books 
on ancient Egypt. 

The character of the country is generally the same now 
as it was when the Tower of Babel was built. There are 
no changes, not even a railroad can change it. At one 
time the Egyptian empire extended through the Arabian 
Peninsula as far as the Holy Land and to the Euphrates. 
That was its greatest extent. A great many of the man¬ 
ners and customs of the Egyptians are indicated in the 
book of Genesis, which tells us how Joseph got there and 
how he was brought in touch with the people. 

In the time of Moses there existed a fact not brought 
out until recently, viz.: a wall extended across the Isthmus 
from the Mediterranean to the Red Sea. That wall ex¬ 
plains why Moses, instead of going the short way to the 
Holy Land, turned and went south, turning the corner of 
that wall. All along it were towers held by the regular 
army of Egypt. The Children of Israel wandered for 
thirty-eight years in the Wilderness; thirty-eight years of 


INTRODUCTORY STUDIES 15 

silence with only a few stations given in one of the books 
of the Pentateuch. The Peninsula of Sinai is a plain of 
white sand. The northern part is called the wilderness of 
Paran in the Old Testament, “ the great and terrible 
wilderness/’ Another part of the Peninsula of Arabia is 
called the “ South Country.” In that country Isaac and 
Abraham, with their herds, dwelt. And there is Kadesh- 
Barnea, the nearest point that the Israelites reached in 
going that way to the Promised Land. Another promi¬ 
nent feature of that country is the Jordan River, which 
rises away up in Lebanon, comes down and empties into 
the Dead Sea. The Dead Sea is so much lower than the 
Mediterranean, the Mediterranean would flow into it if a 
canal were cut between them. It is the deepest hole in 
the ground we know anything about. From the Dead Sea 
to a little arm of the Red Sea is a broad ravine, called the 
Arabah. At a point on the Arabah, near Mt. Hor, the 
elevation is five hundred feet above the Dead Sea, and 
from Mt. Hor south it slopes the other way. It has been 
reasonably conjectured that originally the Jordan River 
entered into this lower sea, and this ravine is nothing but 
a continuation of the valley of the Jordan. But it is now 
filled up, so that it is far above the Dead Sea. 

Now let us get all the wilderness in our minds. From 
the end of that wall is a narrow strip along the beach of 
the Red Sea, the way Moses came down. It is called 
“ The Wilderness of Sin,” the upper part, the “ Wilder¬ 
ness of Etham.” Near the upper part of the arm of the 
Red Sea is the “ Wilderness of Zin.” So there are five of 
these wildernesses, viz.: Sin, Zin, Etham, Shur and 
Paran. 

Notice the mountain ranges. Moses passed between a 
mountain range and the sea, coming down by a beach. 
In the lower part, the mountains get very high, and it is 


16 


EXODUS 


called the Sinaitic Peninsula. Near Mt. Sinai is a level 
plain about 2200 yards long, upon which the Children of 
Israel camped. The mountain rises out of the plain so 
that you can step right up to it and touch it. It rises to 
an immense height, and looking down from the top one 
could see the tents of the Israelites spread out like snow¬ 
flakes. You ought to familiarize yourself with the Si¬ 
naitic Peninsula before Moses got there, its mountains, 
deserts and inhabitants; the Amalekites lived there. 
Moses fought a battle with them before he reached Mt. 
Sinai, and two others before he reached Kadesh-Barnea. 
They were the ancient Canaanitish people and the bitter 
foes of the Israelites, and were doomed by the curse of 
Moses to utter extinction. Still they were not destroyed 
until about the time of Saul and David. 

Look at this valley, the Arabah. In the east are a moun¬ 
tain range and Mt. Seir. Seir was the father of the 
Horites, or “ cave-dwellers.” To-day are marvellous 
caves in that section hollowed out from a time beyond the 
memory of man. These Horites were overcome by the 
descendants of Esau, and then Esau occupied that coun¬ 
try. Hence all this country is called Edom, clear to where 
it touches Moab. You will find many references to Edom; 
it means “ red.” The mountains were of red granite. 
The descendants of Esau were unfriendly to the descend¬ 
ants of Jacob and refused to allow them to pass through 
their country to the Promised Land. So they had to go 
south and cross the desert. That place, Kadesh-Barnea, 
of which so much is said in Exodus, Numbers and Deuter¬ 
onomy, was their last stopping place before they reached 
the borders of the Promised Land. When they returned 
to Kadesh-Barnea they had wandered thirty-eight years. 
There is a book on “ Kadesh-Barnea,” by H. Clay Trum¬ 
bull, in which he tells where the true Kadesh-Barnea is; 


INTRODUCTORY STUDIES 


17 


the commentaries had previously put it in an entirely dif¬ 
ferent place. Dr. Sampey, of the Southern Baptist 
Theological Seminary, was so much impressed with the 
book that when he went to the Holy Land he went to 
Kadesh-Barnea, and he says that the place is just as 
represented in Trumbull’s book. All of Exodus, Leviti¬ 
cus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, except just a little, takes 
place in that country. The Israelites stopped at Mt. 
Sinai, having reached there in two months. They received 
the law, built the tabernacle and the Levitical order of 
worship was prescribed. Mt. Sinai has much to do with 
the history of the people. Stanley’s “ Jewish Church,” in 
three volumes, is very fine on the Sinaitic history and 
peninsula. So, study it with “ Kadesh-Barnea.” Exodus 
commences in the land of Goshen. Moses, the author of 
the Pentateuch, lived not very far from the time of Job. 
I believe that Moses wrote the book of Job. When he 
fled into the wilderness he touched the Job country. 


EXAMINATION QUESTIONS 

1. What countries have to do with the Exodus? 

2. Give a balloon view of Egypt. 

3. How large, how much habitable and how much arable? 

4. What is the lower part of Egypt called and why? 

5. What of its fertility and why? 

6. Where did the Children of Israel settle? 

7. What the capitals and where? 

8. Who first settled Egypt and when? 

9. With what part does ancient history have to do? 

10. What the boundaries of Egypt? 

11. Where the Blue Nile? The White Nile? 

12. What modern improvements in this section? 

13. What the Cecil Rhodes project? 

14. What the first important event in this ancient history? 

15. What the date of pyramid building? 

16. What the purpose of these buildings and the evidence? 

17. How do they rank with the other buildings of the 
world? 


18 EXODUS 

18. What is meant by “ oriented ” as referring to the pyramid 
of Cheops? 

19. What singular thing indicates their acquaintance with 
astronomy? 

20. How were these pyramids built? 

21. What other wonder of the world near these pyramids? 

22. Who built these pyramids? 

23. What our means of information of this time? 

24. What of the antiquity of Egypt and its civilization? 

25. How did they utilize the surplus water from the over¬ 
flow of the Nile? 

26. What science did they develop above others of their day? 

27. What book on the knowledge of the Egyptians com¬ 
mended? 

28. What of the character of the country now? 

29. What was its greatest extent? 

30. What book of the Bible tells us much of the manners 
and customs of the Egyptians? 

31. Why did not Moses go the short way to the Holy Land? 

32. What the nature of the Sinaitic plain? 

33. What is the Arabah? 

34. How many and what wildernesses in this peninsula? 

35. Who the inhabitants here and when destroyed? 

36. Who the Horites and who overcame them? 

37. What the attitude of the descendants of Esau toward 
Israel and why? 

38. What book on Kadesh-Barnea commended? 

39. What one on the Sinatic history and peninsula? 

40. Where does Exodus begin? 

41. What patriarch was almost contemporary with Moses? 

42. Where did Moses go when he fled from Egypt? 


II 


INTRODUCTORY STUDIES : MATERIAL 
FOR A HISTORY OF MOSES 

W E come now to consider the material for the 
history of Moses, the author of the Pentateuch. 
We have studied Genesis, but we did not come 
to the times of Moses himself as we do now. 

The first question is: Where shall the student find the 
material for making up the life of Moses? The first 
main answer is, the Biblical material. That is all that is 
very reliable. Second, Jewish writings, not Biblical, e. g., 
Josephus, Philo and others. Very little from Philo is 
authentic, and many of the things by Josephus are con¬ 
jectures. Third, books on Moses. We will mention only 
four: “ Moses, His Life and Times,” by Rawlinson. 

Any student is able to buy this book. The second 
volume of “ Edersheim’s Bible History,” written by a 
truly evangelical man, one of the greatest of the English 
scholars, a member of the Church of England. It con¬ 
tains less poison than almost any other book on the Old 
Testament that you can buy. Every preacher ought to 
have it. With less favour, I mention Volume I of Stan¬ 
ley's “ Jewish Church,” which touches on the life of 
Moses. Volume II “ Geikie’s Hours with the Bible ” I 
commend with less favour than Stanley. Study those 
four books besides the commentaries; they are all in any 
large library. If you study just one of them, it will be of 
immense help to you. If I were studying this as a student 

19 


20 


EXODUS 


for the first time, without any very broad general infor¬ 
mation, I would avoid reading too many books. We 
must consider the Bible as the chief material and the only 
truly reliable source. All of the Biblical material, except 
a few points, can be found in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, 
Deuteronomy and Acts vii, where the address of Stephen 
throws some very important additional light on the life of 
Moses; also Hebrews xi, commencing: “ By faith Moses, 
when he was born, was hid three months by his par¬ 
ents.’’ This gives us the great mass of the Biblical ma¬ 
terial. The ninetieth Psalm, by superscription and inter¬ 
nal evidence, is declared to be a Psalm of Moses. There 
are many references to Moses in the Psalms. All through 
the Old Testament many additional items are to be found. 
One of our important questions will be: Where is the 
last historical reference to that ark that Moses con¬ 
structed ? We learn from Samuel that the ark was carried 
into the Holy Land by Joshua, captured by the Philis¬ 
tines and brought disaster on them. In David’s time it 
was brought to Jerusalem. When Solomon built the 
temple the same ark was found and opened and we are 
told what was in it. What became of the tabernacle that 
enclosed the ark? When the ark was taken out of the 
tabernacle the tent still remained and the worship was 
still conducted there. There is no more reference to its 
existence after the building of the temple. What be¬ 
came of the tables of stone on which Moses wrote the 
Commandments? The last reference is in I Kings; viz.: 
that they were found in the ark when it was opened. I 
do not know what became of them. What became of that 
brazen serpent that Moses made? We learn from II 
Kings that in the time of Hezekiah the people commenced 
to worship that brazen serpent; that Hezekiah broke it 
into pieces, saying, “ It is only a piece of brass.” These 


INTRODUCTORY STUDIES 


21 

are additional items concerning the things that Moses 
made. 

We learn in Exodus that Moses had two sons, Gershom 
and Eliezer. What became of the descendants of Moses? 
In Judges xviii, 30, 31, according to the Septuagint, which 
is conceded to be the true rendering, we find that Jona¬ 
than, the son of Gershom, the son of Moses, went with 
the Danites when they left the place assigned to them by 
the Almighty and conquered a place in the northern part 
of the Holy Land, and there lived with them and became 
a priest of their idolatrous worship. We are always 
sad when the grandson of a great religious character goes 
over to the enemy. It has always made me very sad that 
the daughter of Gustavus Adolphus, the hero of the 
Protestants in the Thirty Years’ War, was captured by 
the Catholics and trained to be a Catholic, though her 
father had devoted his life and the power of the nation to 
throwing off the yoke of Roman Catholicism. We learn 
in the book of Chronicles that other grandsons of Moses 
were appointed in the service of the tabernacle and one of 
them was made the treasurer. So only one grandson went 
astray. 

In the New Testament we strike new light again, en¬ 
tirely apart from Acts vii and Hebrews xi. In the seven¬ 
teenth of Matthew, and corresponding passages in Mark 
and Luke, Moses himself comes on the scene with Elijah 
and Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration, and talks 
with Jesus concerning His death which soon was to take 
place at Jerusalem. P. C. Headley, who can hardly be 
called a historian, rather a great rhetorician, scrapes the 
star dust when he comes to consider Moses on the Mount 
of Transfiguration. Metaphorically he claps his hands 
and cries, “ At last Moses is in the Promised Land.” 
That is a very valuable item of history. In II Timothy iii, 


22 


EXODUS 


8, we get the very names of the Egyptian priests who 
withstood Moses in the conflict described in Exodus: 
“ And even as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses.” II 
Corinthians iii gives additional light on the shining of the 
face of Moses from Mt. Sinai, and the reason that in¬ 
duced him to put his veil over his face. In the book of 
Jude we strike an item entirely new, not recorded any¬ 
where in the Old Testament. When Moses died, and God 
buried him, and no man knew the place of his sepulchre, 
it says that the devil tried to get possession of his body, 
and that Michael, the archangel, came down and saved 
the body of Moses from the grasp of the devil. In Reve¬ 
lation xv, 2, 3, we find something that has not yet taken 
place, but which will take place: “ And I saw as it were a 
sea of glass mingled with fire.” That refers to the pillar 
of fire shining upon the water at the Red Sea. “ And 
they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the 
song of the Lamb.” That shows that the song that Moses 
wrote on the deliverance of the Israelites became not only 
an immemorial poem on earth, but was transferred to the 
hymn-books of heaven, and will be one of the songs of the 
redeemed when we get to glory. What a high honour 
that a man here on earth should compose one of the 
hymns we will sing when we get to heaven! 

Moses wrote the Pentateuch, the original of which was 
placed in the ark of the covenant. How long did that 
original last and what became of it? If we turn to II 
Kings we find that before the day of Josiah a mandate 
had gone forth to destroy all the Old Testament records 
so that the people would be left without a book of religion. 
In looking over the rubbish a man found the book of 
Moses, and it became the basis of a great reformation. 
We learn that when the exiles returned from their Baby¬ 
lonian captivity Ezra brought back with him a copy of 


INTRODUCTORY STUDIES 23 

this book of Moses, and that he was a learned scribe in 
it. 

When I was a young preacher I determined to study 
the lives of four persons as I never studied and never ex¬ 
pect to study any other subjects, viz.: (i) The life of 
Abraham; and I have read practically everything that was 
ever written in the English language about him. (2) 
Moses, and I have studied critically every passage in the 
Bible in the light of the best commentaries. Horace 
Rowe, who afterwards became a Baptist preacher, once 
said, after hearing me preach a series of sermons on 
Moses, “ I may be ignorant of many things about my 
father, Sam Houston, and even about myself, but I sure 
do know about Moses.” (3) I studied the life of our 
Lord, gospel by gospel, and then harmonically. (4) Paul 
—and I have been studying him about forty years. You 
may rest assured that gathering up the historic or tradi¬ 
tional material that bears upon the life of a man who has 
left his impress not only on time as Moses did, but, as I 
have told you, furnished the literature of heaven, is a 
great occupation for the mind. 

Having looked at the sources of the material, we want 
to get before our mind certain questions: What was the 
religious condition of the Israelites in the time of Moses ? 
Rawlinson says that they had no new revelations from 
God, but they could look back to the revelations that had 
been made to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph. I 
think I could prove that a revelation had been made to 
Moses (but he made the mistake of supposing that the 
people would understand what he knew), viz.: the fact 
that they were to be delivered, though all believed it 
from the past prophecies. Their religion certainly had the 
following things all the time in Egypt: They kept up 
the rite of circumcision, which is proved from Exodus and 


EXODUS 


24 

Joshua. If they circumcised their children, which was a 
religious rite and obligation, there is right enough to be¬ 
lieve that they still were religious. They kept up the 
offering of sacrifices; for one of the requests made of 
Pharaoh was that th£y might be allowed to go three days’ 
journey to offer sacrifices, according to their laws. 
Another thing they had was the Sabbath; for it is found 
in Exodus in the marching out of Egypt that they were 
commanded to gather twice as much manna as they had 
any other day; and when the Ten Commandments were 
given, “ Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy,” is 
recorded. But there is a still stronger evidence found in 
the naming of their children. Hebrew names all had a 
meaning. They might miss the mark, but the names rep¬ 
resent some faith of their own hearts. Still more im¬ 
portant is the testimony which cannot be overlooked 
(unless you deny the Bible, and therefore I am not in¬ 
clined to agree with commentators and most writers that 
the Israelites in Egypt had little spiritual light), viz.: 

“ By faith Moses, when he was born, was hid three 
months by his parents, because they saw he was a goodly 
child; and they were not afraid of the king’s command¬ 
ment.” 

The king’s commandment was that every little child 
should be put to death. They had faith, based on the 
religious life of the past; but how did Moses get his 
faith? “ By faith Moses, when he was grown up, re¬ 
fused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter.” All 
these passages seem to me to everlastingly refute those 
conjectures made by commentators, based upon mere 
science. You cannot build a house on science. I imagine 
that the faith of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph kept 


INTRODUCTORY STUDIES 


25 


tip in its purity in many warm Hebrew hearts throughout 
all the years in Egypt; and I feel sure that God had re¬ 
vealed, either to Moses himself or to the parents of Moses, 
that he was the particular person to deliver that people. 
When Moses commenced to speak to them he did not talk 
as though it were a new thing. He refers to the past and 
appeals to what he knows to be their faith. 

We may now contrast the religion of the Israelites in 
Egypt with the religion of the Egyptians themselves. In 
order to understand the religion of the Egyptians we must 
consider that the Hyksos, or shepherd kings, descend¬ 
ants of Shem, took possession of and held Egypt a long 
time. My own opinion coincides with the opinion ex¬ 
pressed by Rawlinson that the “ king who knew not 
Joseph ” and threw the Israelites into bondage was the 
one who overpowered the shepherd kings who had re¬ 
ceived the Israelites. The most cultivated Egyptians be¬ 
lieved in one God, but they taught the manifestation of 
that God under polytheism, and most of the people 
stopped with idolatry. The ancient Egyptians formu¬ 
lated a belief in immortality, and their “ Book of the 
Dead ” is one of the most remarkable books upon the 
future life in all ancient literature. Under the forms of 
God, they worshipped the Nile, crocodiles, beetles, cats 
and many other animals. I spent three wonderful nights 
—snow was fourteen inches deep—in a tent while in the 
army, studying Tom Moore’s “ Epicurean,” giving the 
initiation of an Athenian youth into the mysteries of the 
Egyptian religion. 

Now I will tell you about their literature. At Heli¬ 
opolis was a university. Rawlinson says it stood for what 
Oxford in England stands to-day. Their writing con¬ 
sisted of hieroglyphic pictures. Much of this writing is 
to be seen now. There was another kind of writing by 


26 


EXODUS 


symbols. For instance, a circle was used to signify a 
certain thing. I tell you these things that you may 
understand that passage in Acts which says: “ Moses 

was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians.” He 
went to their schools and passed through their athletic 
education. They played ball—not football, for even the 
girls played. They confined it mainly to throwing the 
ball. The Egyptian boy had his body trained in their 
gymnasiums. They had music, poetry and arithmetic. 
You will know that Moses must have studied somewhere 
when you read his matchless poetry. When we say that 
Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, 
we mean as a member of the royal family he received the 
highest education in the most civilized nation in the then 
known world. The Egyptians invented our figures, the 
Arabic notation. Nobody could have built those pyra¬ 
mids, canals and reservoirs who was not educated. One 
has to be an artist in that pictorial writing to distinguish 
between a hawk and a goose. 


EXAMINATION QUESTIONS 

1. Where may the student find the material for the history 
of Moses? 

2. What the Biblical? 

3. The Jewish? 

4. The non-Jewish? 

5. What Psalm did he write? 

6. Where is the last reference to the ark of the covenant? 

7. What became of the tabernacle? 

8. Of the tables of stone? 

9. Of the brazen serpent? 

10. How many sons had Moses and what their names? 

11. What became of the descendants of Moses? 

12. What example of this in profane history? 

13. What the names of the Egyptian priests who withstood 
Moses? The proof? 

14. What new light from Jude? 

15. What signal honour conferred upon Moses by Jehovah? 


INTRODUCTORY STUDIES 


n 


16. Of what books is he the author? 

17. What four Biblical characters worthy of a lifetime study? 

18. What was the religious condition of the Israelites in 
the time of Moses? 

19. Did they receive any revelation between the death of 
Joseph and the return of Moses from the burning bush? If 
so, what? 

20. What the evidences of their religious conditions in Egypt ? 

21. What of the religion of the Egyptians? 

22. What of their literature? 

23. Where its seat? 

24. What is meant by the statement that “ Moses was learned 
in all the wisdom of the Egyptians”? 


Ill 


A SYNOPTICAL REVIEW AND A 
PROLOGUE 

Exodus I, 1-14 

I T now becomes necessary to refer, though briefly, to 
some matters behind us. First, this book not only 
commences with the conjunction and shows direct 
connection with the preceding book, of which it is a con¬ 
tinuation, but also its prologue, the first six verses, re¬ 
hearses the closing part of Genesis as an introduction. 
Moreover, throughout the book, there are so many back 
references to Genesis that one unfamiliar with Genesis 
can never understand Exodus. 

We find in Genesis the following race-trials: The 
first was the race-trial in Adam, under a covenant of 
works, which culminated in his fall, the fall of the race 
with him and his expulsion from the garden of Eden. 
The second race-trial was the establishment of the throne 
of grace, when God dwelt between the Cherubim on the 
east of the garden of Eden, as a Shekinah, or flame of 
fire, to keep open the way to the tree of life. This was 
a covenant of grace. Here, under this second trial, Adam 
and his descendants must approach God through faith in 
an atoning sacrifice. It is true that this sacrifice was only 
typical. This trial culminated at the flood with the race 
destruction. The third race-trial was on the new earth 
under Noah, under a more enlarged covenant than the 

28 


A SYNOPTICAL REVIEW 


29 


i] 

covenant with Adam. Still, however, the method of ap¬ 
proach to God was by sacrifice and through faith in that 
atoning sacrifice. This trial culminated in the great sin 
at Babel, the confusion of tongues and the dispersion of 
the nations. From that time on our history does not deal 
with mankind at large, but the fourth trial commences at 
the call of Abraham; that in his descendants as a nation 
God might have a peculiar people, isolated from others, 
sanctified to Him, becoming the depositary of His reve¬ 
lations, and through that nation to reach all the nations of 
the earth. This is the fourth trial. 

But this trial was not consummated in Genesis; only 
its preparatory states. Abraham and his family, so far as 
Genesis goes, had not yet become a nation. It is to Exo¬ 
dus we must look to find the chosen line becoming a na¬ 
tion. So from Exodus on, until I give you notice, we are 
under the fourth trial. It is in the book of Exodus you 
must find the fulfilment in a great part of the prophecies 
and promises made to or through Abraham, Isaac, Jacob 
and Joseph. These preliminary observations show how 
necessary an understanding of Exodus is. Indeed, the 
whole book of the Pentateuch was formerly just one book, 
and the division into volumes Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, 
Numbers and Deuteronomy, is really artificial. 

The second thing is that two preliminary introductory 
chapters have been given; the first, devoted mainly to 
the geography, archaeology and history of Egypt and the 
Sinaitic Peninsula. As Egypt, and the desert lying be¬ 
tween Egypt and the Holy Land, is the arena upon which 
all the events in the book of Exodus are performed, it is 
necessary to get clearly before us something of the geog¬ 
raphy, archaeology and history of those sections of coun¬ 
try. On the map can be seen the sections of the country, 
the rivers, the deserts, the mountains and the character of 


30 EXODUS [i 

the country. Each reader should provide himself with 
Hurlbut’s Bible Atlas. 

Now, our last chapter was devoted mainly to a con¬ 
sideration of the materials, or the sources of information 
necessary to a history of the life of Moses. These sources 
are found to be: first, Biblical—the Old and New Testa¬ 
ments; second, Jewish, but not Biblical; third, non-Jew- 
ish historians, myths and legends. In that chapter there 
was particularly pointed out what parts of the Bible con¬ 
tributed material to the history of Moses. For instance, 
the ninetieth Psalm—a Psalm written by Moses; and in 
the New Testament are some valuable contributions to 
the life of Moses: Acts vii; Hebrews xi; the passage in 
the letter to Timothy; one in the book of Revelation and 
Jude, all of which are fully cited. 

The second chapter was devoted partly to an examina¬ 
tion of the religious light possessed by the Israelites in 
Egypt and their religious status under that light, up to 
the call of Moses recorded in Exodus iii. Then, by way 
of contrast, I considered the civilization of Egypt; noted 
its religion, its system of agriculture, its schools, arts, 
sciences and government. The chapter closed with a 
commendation of some books on Exodus, the safest, most 
needed, most valuable, and withal, best suited to begin¬ 
ners in the study of Exodus. For the most part one who 
has only a knowledge of the English language is little 
prepared for a more extended bibliography. I will repeat 
the list of books: 

(i) Dr. Sampey’s “Syllabus for Old Testament 
Study.” In that syllabus you will find an outline of the 
book of Exodus that is about as good as anybody can 
give. And all along through the Old Testament you will 
find the chronological chart at the end of the book of 
very great value. 


A SYNOPTICAL REVIEW 


31 


i] 

(2) Hurlbut’s Bible Atlas. 

(3) Then I wanted each reader to have in compact 
form and according to a reliable author, a history of the 
Old Testament, and the book that I specially commended 
was “ Edersheim’s History of the Bible,” a history of 
Israel and Judah. The second volume of that history is 
the one that treats particularly of the book of Exodus. 

(4) The next book that I commended was Rawlin- 
son’s “ Moses, His Life and Times.” Rawlinson is a 
very great scholar, one of the best that we have; and his 
book, a little book prepared with a great deal of care, 
were I a student, I would buy. I would always read that 
part of it which touches the lesson. 

(5) The fifth book is Dr. Wilkinson’s “Epic of 
Moses.” The “ Epic of Moses ” and the “ Epic of Paul ” 
are the best interpretative books in the way of epics in all 
literature. Milton’s “ Paradise Lost ” won’t begin to 
compare with Dr. Wilkinson’s books in the safeness of 
the interpretative spirit. Very seldom, so far as I am able 
to judge, does he ever get away from the right construc¬ 
tion and meaning to be put on an event. There are in¬ 
troduced into the book, for filling in, of course, some char¬ 
acters that are not Bible characters, but all of these are 
interpretative. 

(6) “ Kadesh-Barnea,” by H. Clay Trumbull, was 
also commended. The books usually commended are 
Robinson’s “ Researches in the Holy Land,” and Thomp¬ 
son’s “ The Land and the Book.” But these books are of 
a long time ago. “ Kadesh-Barnea ” touches the books of 
Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers. It is the book of the 
pilgrimage in the wilderness, from the going out of the 
people until they entered into the Holy Land. 

(7) The seventh book is Philo’s “ Life of Moses.” 
That part of Josephus which covers the book of Exodus 


32 


EXODUS 


T> 

you should read, though I want to caution you that when 
Josephus gets outside of what the Bible says, what he 
says is to be received with a great deal of caution. He 
and Philo put in a great deal about Moses that the Bible 
does not give at all; all of it is based on some tradition; 
some of it is very wild ; other things are probable. 

There are two other books which I commend to you 
with much reservation: Stanley’s “ Jewish Church,” 
Vol. I; and Geikie’s “ Hours with the Bible,” Vol. II, 
both of which touch Exodus. These are both great 
writers, but in many respects unsafe. It does not hurt 
me to read them. I get great benefit from them, but one 
who has not studied the ground which they cover, can be 
misled either by Stanley or Geikie. Hence the commen¬ 
dation of these two books is with reservation. 

Now, there is a set of books to which I wish to call 
attention. I never call attention to a book that I have not 
examined. Dr. Hengstenberg, a German author, who 
pleases me better than all the rest put together, has a 
series of volumes on “ Christology of the Old Testa¬ 
ment.” In the first of that “ Christology ” is an article on 
the Angel of the Lord, as he is set forth in Genesis, Exo¬ 
dus, etc. That is a very valuable contribution. Then he 
has another book, “ The History of the Kingdom of God 
in the Old Testament.” The first of that where it ’ 
touches Exodus is very fine. He has a third book called 
“ Egypt and Moses,” which is devoted mainly to rebutting 
the attacks of the higher critics. 

The book of Exodus, and the ground covered by it, has 
been the theme of fiction, and I call attention to a book— 
Tom Moore’s “ Epicurean,”—as throwing light upon the 
mysteries of the Egyptian priesthood and religion. I 
called attention to two or three of the Ebers books, bear¬ 
ing on the question. Another book of fiction which people 


A SYNOPTICAL REVIEW 


33 


i] 

like to read very much, though it is what Dr. Broadus 
would call “ a third-class novel ” as to its reliability, is 
the “ Pillar of Fire,” by J. H. Ingraham. Nearly all of 
the young people like to read that book without stopping 
to reflect that the author committed suicide. He was an 
Episcopal clergyman. There is a modern book of very 
considerable value called “ Lex Mosaica,” the Mosaic 
Law. The first article in it is devoted to a consideration 
of this question: The literary activities in the time of 
Moses. Some of the higher critics have said that in the 
time of Moses there Was no such thing as literature, and 
therefore it was impossible for any man in his time to 
have written the Pentateuch. That article “ knocks the 
bottom out of ” that accusation. It shows there were 
schools and universities just as we have now. Moses him¬ 
self was educated in a university at Heliopolis, and they 
not only had a system of writing, but many systems of 
writing. They even had alphabetical writing. The fact 
is that we get our alphabet from the Egyptians rather than 
from the Phoenicians. The Arabians had schools and 
books of learning; the Babylonians more than any other 
had them. The land of Canaan was full of literature. 
One of the cities captured by Joshua was a book city, a 
city of books and public libraries. Archaeological dis¬ 
coveries have recently brought to light whole libraries in 
which correspondence on love matters and business mat¬ 
ters of that day are brought to light, showing the absurd¬ 
ity of trying to assert that there were no literary attain¬ 
ments in the days of Moses that would justify the state¬ 
ment that he was the author of the Pentateuch. The 
first article in the “ Lex Mosaica ” is very valuable on the 
subject. 

In the January, 1907, issue of the Southern Baptist 
Theological Seminary Magazine is an article by Dr. Wm. 


34 


EXODUS 


[i 

Ashmore on the “ Kingdom of Jehovah.” Try and get a 
copy of that publication and hold on to it. When I get 
to the twentieth chapter of Exodus I want to dig under 
the foundations of some of the statements by Dr. Ashmore 
in that article. Although it is a very fine article I am sure 
that its value is to be discounted in some of his positions. 
There is another magazine which if the reader had access 
to I would insist that he secure it. I do not remember 
the name and issue of the magazine, but the article is by 
Dr. A. C. Dayton, author of “ Theodosia Earnest.” In 
considering the politics and religion of Egypt this article 
bears directly upon the question of modern Spiritualism. 
Probably the article is in the Southwestern Review of 
about three years ago, or it may be in a magazine that 
J. R. Graves started. That man could not write without 
throwing light on a subject. So much for the books. 

While we were in Genesis I called attention to a ques¬ 
tion of chronology. It comes in the twelfth chapter, but 
I will give you the references now, and you can study 
them: Genesis xv, 13; Exodus xii, 40, 41; Acts vii, 6; 
Galatians iii, 17. The Genesis passage is in the prophecy 
made to Abraham that his people should be afflicted four 
hundred years, a prophecy which distinctly tells that they 
should be led away into another nation to be subject to 
them, and that God would deliver them and bring them 
out. It is the great declaration that kept hope alive in 
the hearts of those people all the time they were in exile. 
Joseph refers to it in the last chapter of Genesis when he 
said: “ God will certainly visit you and bring you out of 
this land.” The point of chronology is that this seems to 
put the stay in Egypt at four hundred and thirty years. 
The twelfth chapter of Exodus declares that at the very 
day God said their time in Egypt should end it did end, 
and gives again the number as four hundred and thirty 


A SYNOPTICAL REVIEW 


35 


i] 

years. But in the Greek Septuagint, and in the Samaritan 
Pentateuch, in this twelfth chapter of Exodus it reads 
differently. It gives the four hundred and thirty years, 
but it includes in the four hundred and thirty years in this 
text all the sojourners, including Abraham, commencing 
with the call of Abraham to the Exodus, in order to get 
the four hundred and thirty years. In Acts vii, Stephen, 
speaking of it, refers to this four hundred years of Gene¬ 
sis xv, 13. In Galatians iii, Paul evidently does not think 
that they were in Egypt four hundred and thirty years, 
but he makes the law, delivered on Mt. Sinai just one year 
or a few months after they left Egypt, just four hundred 
and thirty years after the call of Abraham. Now, here is 
one of my examination questions: How long were the 
children of Israel in Egypt ? My own opinion is that they 
were in Egypt two hundred and ten years, and that the 
sojourning covers the whole time, as Paul gives it, from 
the call of Abraham to the giving of the Law, four hun¬ 
dred and thirty years. Usher, in his chronology, which 
you find in the margin of the King James version, adopts 
this view. Dr. Sampey adopts it in his chronology. That 
is the usual interpretation, but many great commentators 
dissent from it, and they believe that the children of 
Israel were actually in Egypt four hundred and thirty 
years. 

Another examination question will be this: There 
were seventy odd of these people—not including their 
servants, which might have made them three thousand— 
when they went into Egypt. When they entered Egypt 
their occupation was pastoral. They were nomads—peo¬ 
ple that lived under tents and changed their stopping 
place as pasturage and water demanded. Now give me 
proof from the book of Exodus that the people had 
changed largely from a pastoral people to agriculturalists 


36 


EXODUS 


[i 

and artisans. The evidences on the subject can be found 
in the following scriptures: Exodus iii, 10-22, which 
shows that the Israelites in Egypt lived in houses. The 
same thing is clearly brought out in xi, 1-3; xii, 7. Here 
are some important passages to show that the greater 
part of them had become agriculturalists: Numbers xi, 5 ; 
xx, 5; Deuteronomy xi, 10. Now here are some scrip¬ 
tures that show that numbers of them had become archi¬ 
tects and manufacturers: Exodus i, 14, and many others. 
It is very important for the reader to fix in his mind that 
great change which had come over these people from the 
nomadic or pastoral life to the agricultural life. Egypt 
was an agricultural land. True, there were only about 
five thousand square miles of the whole territory that 
could be tilled, but as it was tilled under irrigation, a small 
plot could support a great many people. It was the high¬ 
est form of agriculture, and these people served in the 
fields. In some of these passages it says that they would 
run along and open trenches with their feet for the water 
to run from the big irrigation canal. Then, how did 
Aaron know how to take metal and put it into a furnace 
and mould a calf ? How did they know how to construct 
a tabernacle, and many things necessary to its equipment ? 
A great change must have come over this people. 

Now, I commence the book of Exodus. The first 
thing in your book is the Prologue, which simply re¬ 
hearses the closing part of Genesis, as this 7th verse 
says: “ And the children of Israel were fruitful, and 

increased abundantly, and multiplied, and waxed exceed¬ 
ingly mighty, and the land was filled with them.” Here 
was a most marvellous fecundity, or reproduction of the 
race. When we go to lead these people out there will be 
600,000, from twenty years old and upwards, without 
counting the women and children, besides the mixed 


A SYNOPTICAL REVIEW 


i] 


37 


population. You will see a multitude go out of that 
country, at least 3,000,000 in number, including the mixed 
population and their servants. Their male servants were 
circumcised, and became thereby constituent members of 
the Jewish economy. Exodus goes on to tell us that it 
was utterly impossible to keep these people from multi¬ 
plying ; and when the call of Moses takes place it takes 
place under the marvellous symbol of a bush that was 
all the time burning, and never consumed. These people 
might be afflicted, and effort might be made to stop the 
increase of the population, but all the powers of affliction 
did not destroy the bush; they kept on growing. This was 
under the blessing of God. 

The next verse says: “ Now there arose a new king 
over Egypt, who knew not Joseph.” When Abraham en¬ 
tered Egypt, and particularly when Joseph and these 
Israelites entered Egypt, the rulers were (what is called 
in history) the Hyksos, or shepherd kings. They were of 
the Semitic blood; they were really kind and good to the 
Israelites. And they were monotheists. They knew 
about the pastoral life. These kings that came from Syria 
and the Holy Land, and other places, and took possession 
of Egypt, driving out the native population, or rather 
obtaining the rule over the native population, were there 
several hundred years. That made it very opportune for 
these people to go into Egypt in order to be nourished, 
but just before the Exodus, soon after the death of 
Joseph, the native Egyptians expelled the Hyksos kings 
and re-established the old rule all over Egypt. It was 
quite natural that when they drove out these shepherds 
that had held their country they would hold in mind no 
longer Joseph, who was a prime minister under the Hyk¬ 
sos kings, as the former kings had done. So they did not 
cherish the same kindly feeling toward the descendants 


38 


EXODUS 


[i 

of Jacob as the former kings had done. That part of 
Egyptian history every student ought to be familiar with, 
as it explains how this new king knew not Joseph. 

Now, from the 9th verse of the first chapter, we have 
what is called a great state problem. Don’t you make 
any mistake—it was a problem. Always in history there 
has been a problem when there has been an “ imperium in 
imperio,” a nation within a nation, a people within a 
people, differing in customs and feelings. There is al¬ 
ways a problem. What are you going to do with them 
when they are side by side, like the Moorish population 
in Spain? A fair illustration is the negro population in 
the South. We find that to be a real problem, too. Here 
we have 10,000,000 negroes and most of them in the 
South, a different race of people; it is a hazardous situa¬ 
tion. Now the new kings of Egypt found that great 
problem; a great population that looked like it was going 
to be greater than the Egyptian population. The Egyp¬ 
tians did not multiply. Notice what the king said, “ Be¬ 
hold, the people of Israel are more and mightier than we; 
come, let us deal wisely with them, lest they multiply, and 
it come to pass that, when there falleth out any war, they 
join themselves also unto our enemies, and fight against 
us, and get them up out of the land.” He did not want 
to lose all that population, and yet he did not know what 
to do with that problem. So he called his council together 
and considered what should be done. A nation is always 
in danger when it comes to deal with a people inside of 
its own boundaries that are not homogeneous. That is 
the greatest problem England has to-day in dealing with 
Ireland. They do not assimilate. Scotland did assimilate. 
The English and Irish differ in religion and in every¬ 
thing. They are really different in racial origin, one Cel¬ 
tic and the other Teutonic. 


A SYNOPTICAL REVIEW 


39 


i] 

Let us see what measures this king adopted: (i) He 
enslaved them. Heretofore they had not been slaves. 
You notice the position they occupied in Goshen on one 
of the mouths of the Nile that was nearest to the Holy 
Land, where the great Hittite and Philistine nations were. 
Really, just at the time there had been great wars between 
the Hittite nation and the Egyptians, and if the Hittites 
were to invade Egypt like the Hyksos they would first 
strike Goshen where they would find a large population, 
almost as large as the Egyptians, and they might join 
hands, and it would then be only a few hours’ march to 
the greatest cities of Egypt. So the king determined to 
make slaves out of them. 

“ Therefore they did set over them taskmakers to 
afflict them with their burdens. And they built for Pha¬ 
raoh store-cities, Pithom and Raineses.” The pyramids 
were already built, and had been built before Abraham, 
but they built these treasure cities. If you were to go 
there to-day you would find the foundation of that great 
city of Rameses, built of sun-dried brick like the adobe 
houses of Mexico, of mixed mortar and straw. All the 
land in Egypt belonged to the king, from the time of 
Joseph. The people held the land as tenants of the king, 
and these treasure cities were built to hold his revenue. 

EXAMINATION QUESTIONS 

r. What evidence of the direct connection with Genesis? 

2. What race-trials in Genesis? 

3. What trial in Exodus? 

4. Name the books commended on Exodus. 

5. What works of fiction mentioned? 

6. What evidence of the literary activity in the time of 
Moses ? 

7. Briefly, how do you clear the chronological difficulty of 
Genesis xv, 13; Exodus xii, 40; Acts vii, 6, and Galatians iii, 17? 

8. Give proof from the book of Exodus that the people had 


40 EXODUS [i 

changed largely from pastoral people to agriculturalists and 
artisans. 

9. Give evidence that Israel increased rapidly in Egypt, and 
how was their endurance symbolized? 

10. Explain how the new king knew not Joseph. 

11. What great state problem did the new king find? 

12. What two modern illustrations of this problem? 

13. What policy did the king adopt? 

14. Did it succeed and why? 

15. What is meant by the treasure cities that the Israelites 
built for the Egyptians? 


IV 


BIRTH AND PREPARATION OF MOSES 
Exodus I, 15— II, 22 

W E come now to a resumption of our study of 
the book of Exodus. The last chapter closed 
while we were considering that great state 
problem: What the dominant people of a nation should 
do with an entirely distinct people in their boundaries is 
always a critical question to deal with, and it is always 
best to deal with it in righteousness. 

The expedients to which Pharaoh resorted: (1) The 
enslavement of the people; (2) Two different methods to 
bring about the destruction of the male children as they 
were born. Both failed; they continued to multiply. 

Now we come to the greatest man (his impress on 
the world is ineffaceable)—the greatest man unless, per¬ 
haps, we except Abraham, in Jewish history, Moses, a 
marvellous man. We ought very carefully to study this 
man’s life, which is divided into three periods of forty 
years each, exactly: (1) From his birth up to forty 
years of age, when he made his great decision that he 
would not be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, in¬ 
cluding his birth, early life, education, and his deeds 
while he was a part of the court of Pharaoh; (2) The 
period of retirement, forty years in Midian; (3) The 
forty years extending from God’s call in the burning bush 
until his death. In that last period comes most of the 

41 


42 EXODUS [i-ii 

book of Exodus, all of Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteron¬ 
omy, the ninetieth Psalm and all the other things that he 
did. This is the period of his literary activity and his 
great deeds. 

Moses was of the tribe of Levi. Exodus states it thus: 
“ And there went a man of the house of Levi, and took 
to wife a daughter of Levi.” That was during the time 
of the law that every male child should be cast into the 
river. That injunction rested upon every Egyptian and 
upon all Jewish parents. This last law came into effect 
between the birth of Aaron and the birth of Moses. This 
family had two children before this law went into effect, 
Miriam the oldest, and Aaron, who was three years older 
than Moses. When Moses was born three terms were 
used to describe the child, one in Exodus ii, one in Acts 
vii, and one in Hebrews xi. 

Exodus ii says, “ When she saw him that he was a 
goodly child” 

Acts vii says, “ When she saw that he was exceeding 
fairr 

Hebrews xi says, “ When she saw he was a proper 
childr 

These words describe this baby as the mother saw him. 
From the traditions that confirm the statements here, he 
was a remarkable specimen of the physical as well as the 
mental man. Philo and Josephus go into ecstasies. They 
say that when Moses as a boy walked along the street the 
women would come out and stand at the doors to look at 
him. When he grew to be a man he attracted attention, 
as a man of presence. There are very few men of pres¬ 
ence who, as soon as they are seen, impress you. General 
Sam Houston would impress you ioo yards off. He had 


BIRTH OF MOSES 


43 


i-ii] 

more presence than any other man I ever saw. I was a 
boy when I first saw him, but I recognized him ioo yards 
off. Sam Houston could not walk down the street with¬ 
out people coming out to look at him. 

The next thing that we learn about Moses, as in He¬ 
brews xi, 25, is: “ By faith Moses, when he was born, was 
hid three months by his parents, because they saw he was 
a goodly child; and they were not afraid of the king’s 
commandment.” Here is a case of simple faith on the 
part of the parents of the child. They seemed to recog¬ 
nize that in that child was much of the future of their 
people. Their faith took hold of it, that God meant to 
do great things through that baby, and that faith was so 
strong that it cast out fear. The king’s command was 
this: “ Cast this child into the Nile.” They hid him. 
When they could not hide him longer, and the king said, 
“ Cast him into the Nile,” still they were not afraid. 
They cast him into the Nile, but took precaution to put 
him where he would not be injured. They constructed 
a little vessel of bulrushes and put him in that; and their 
faith did not stop at that, for they stationed their eldest 
child to watch. They put him right where they knew the 
king’s daughter came down to bathe. Some one has said, 
“ How could she dare to bathe in the Nile on account of 
crocodiles ? ” There were no crocodiles that low down in 
the Nile. Look at the faith of the parents of that child: 
that God meant great things for that child and, through 
him, for his people; that the king’s command was not 
going to interfere with God’s purpose; their faith taking 
steps for his preservation, and their steps were to induce 
a member of the royal family to foster the future de¬ 
liverer of the nation. 

The next thing is to know what opportunity the child’s 
parents had to make a religious impression on his mind. 


44 


EXODUS 


[i-n 

They arranged it so that the mother of the child should 
nurse him. She had the boy, until he was weaned, under 
her exclusive control. You let a mother have faith about 
a child and have complete charge of him until he is 
weaned, and she will make a great many religious im¬ 
pressions upon his mind. It is not to be supposed, then, 
that all connection between her and the child was broken 
off. We do not know that Moses ever, for one moment, 
supposed himself to be an Egyptian, and never for one 
moment was he, in heart, identified with the Egyptians; 
so that evidently in that early period of his life, deep re¬ 
ligious impressions were made upon his mind. 

The next step was in regard to his name. Pharaoh’s 
daughter called him “ Moses,” saying, “ Because I drew 
him out of the water.” An examination question will be 
given: Give the derivation of the name of Moses. And 
you need not bother your mind with critical statements 
about some other origin for the name. The Bible says 
that this is the true origin; Josephus says it is; and it 
can be fairly deduced from the name itself. 

The next statement about him is his education. Acts 
vii comes in here: “ And Moses was learned in all the 
wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words and 
in deeds.” Now, if you have given attention to what 
the education of a royal child in Egypt signified, you 
have a conception of the preparation in this man’s life. 
We think it is awful to have to go to college for four 
years. This man’s preparation extended over eighty 
years, for forty years’ work. I repeat to you again, that 
only prepared men ever do great things. It is simply 
impossible for unprepared men to do really great things. 
Shakespeare says that some men have greatness thrust 
upon them, but he means a very short-lived greatness, one 
that soon vanishes. Now, this record further states that 


BIRTH OF MOSES 


45 


i-n] 

he was mighty in words and in deeds. Evidently this 
refers to military matters. In Egypt great men were 
utilized in the priesthood or in bureaucracies. The king 
was an autocrat; and all things were managed by bureaus, 
such as the bureau of agriculture, government of prov¬ 
inces, etc. Or he could enter the military life. As the 
royal family were especially devoted to military affairs, 
it is very probable, as Josephus says, that Moses com¬ 
manded an expedition against the Ethiopians in a great 
war, and won a signal triumph. 

This brings the boy up to forty years. Let us see what 
the Scripture says about that. Acts vii: “ And when he 
was full forty years old, it came into his heart to visit 
his brethren.” Verse n says, “And it came to pass in 
those days, when Moses was grown up, that he went out 
unto his brethren, and looked on their burdens.” The 
question now comes up: How did it come into Moses* 
heart to make that visit of inspection to his brethren? 
The only way it could occur to him is by considering this 
passage in Hebrews xi (which it seems to me is the most 
remarkable statement in the Bible) : “ By faith Moses, 
when he was grown up, refused to be called the son of 
Pharaoh’s daughter; choosing rather to share ill-treat¬ 
ment with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures 
of sin for a season; accounting the reproach of Christ 
greater riches than the treasures of Egypt; for he looked 
unto the recompense of reward.” 

Now faith rests on some word of God presented: 
“ Faith comes by hearing.” What do you suppose was 
the word of God to Moses? We infer what it was by a 
statement in Acts vii, where Stephen says that when he 
intervened between two of the Hebrews who were quarrel¬ 
ling, he supposed that they would understand that God 
was to deliver them through him. He understood it, and 


46 


EXODUS 


[i-ii 

supposed that they would understand. So that when he 
was forty years old evidently a communication was made 
to him from God to this effect: “ You are to deliver this 
people Israel.” Now he had faith. Therefore, he 
had to make a decision. He came to where the roads 
forked. 

I remember when I first preached a sermon on this text. 
I was a young preacher. The town of Bryan was just 
being built. The railroad had just reached there. They 
invited me to preach, and I preached on this subject: 
“ The choice of Moses.” I have the sermon now. It was 
published. I drew a picture of a man forty years old, not 
a child. I commenced by saying, “ It is the custom of in¬ 
fidels to claim that religion is for weak-minded women 
and for children. Here was not a weak-minded person 
but a mature, strong man, the best educated man of his 
age, the brightest man whose power was unquestioned; 
and this man came to the forks of the road. When he 
looked down the left-hand road, what could he see? (i) 
The position of a prince, the son of Pharaoh’s daughter; 
(2) The pleasure of sin; (3) The treasures of that posi¬ 
tion, viz.: honour, pleasure, treasure, not his to be had by 
working for them, but his already, in his possession. 
Now, what induced him to discount that? First, these 
pleasures were those of sin, and these treasures were those 
of evil. He knew how they had been gotten by rapacious 
wars. So the character of the honour, the pleasure and 
the treasure discounted them. What else discounted 
them? ‘For a season.’ They are transient. The hon¬ 
our, the pleasure and the treasure all had written over 
them: ‘ Passing Away.’ What other thought? The rec¬ 
ompense of the reward, that is, The Outcome. Pleasure 
is sweet; treasure is desirable; honour is gratifying; but 
if these are bad in character, transitory in their nature, 


i-n] BIRTH OF MOSES 47 

and the ultimate reward is evil, a wise man ought not to 
walk in that road.” 

Let us see what he saw on the other side. (i) “ Choos¬ 
ing afflictions”; (2) Reproach; (3) The giving up of 
that which he had; Renunciation, affliction and reproach. 
But now what was the character of these? If he re¬ 
nounced this high position, it was because they were not 
his people; that if he chose this affliction, it was an afflic¬ 
tion with the people of God; and if he was to bear this 
reproach, it was the reproach of Christ, the coming Mes¬ 
siah. So you see his faith, even then, rested clearly on 
the coming Messiah. Now the last thing is, the recom¬ 
pense of the reward: (1) Not for a season, but for all 
time; the other was transitory. There a man forty years 
old, learned, great, stood and looked down both these 
roads, first at this picture then at that; instituting a com¬ 
parison that might be a basis of decision. This path com¬ 
mences bright and gets dark. The other commences dark, 
but becomes brighter. This fire-bordered; that satin. 
But as a thinker and an intelligent man, he must press 
the question to its outcome. How does it end? The 
principle by which he made that decision was faith. He 
believed in God, in the promises made to his people; that 
he was the appointed deliverer of his people. He believed 
that in the end he would have higher honour, sweeter 
pleasure, richer treasure and more alluring reward, if he 
took that right-hand road. It would be very interesting 
to trace the life of Moses out, to see whether he made a 
good choice or a bad one. His life was very much afflicted 
all the time he was trying to deliver his people. He had 
to die alone, with nobody near him; to be buried, nobody 
knew where. But the outcome is glorious. He is seen 
in consultation with Jesus Christ upon the Mount of 
Transfiguration. He wrote one of the hymns of heaven, 


48 


EXODUS 


[i-ii 

which not only made him immortal on earth, but immor¬ 
tal throughout eternity. He wrote the Pentateuch, the 
basis of all good government, recognized by all of the 
leading nations of the world as the very foundation of 
jurisprudence. So that in literature the way he decided 
was well. In personal reward he did well. 

I shall never forget the first sermon I ever heard Major 
Penn preach. He was then holding a protracted meeting, 
and a big crowd was out. That old First Church down 
there in Waco was brimful. He got up and said: 

“ What is the first thing? The first thing is decision. 
Now if you are incapable of making a decision, the sexton 
will open the door and let you out. You need not stay 
here. But if you have stamina enough in you to reach a 
decision, a conclusion, when a matter is fairly presented 
to you, I would like for you to come up and take a front 
seat, and let me tell you what I want you to decide on. 
I want you, without any singing or any sermon, just 
simply on the point, that if a matter is presented to you 
that you will decide one way or the other, to come up and 
take a front seat. Are you afraid to come? Are you 
afraid to pledge yourselves to a decision? If you just 
simply want to hear me talk and not decide, and do 
nothing, the sexton will let you out and you can go 
home. But if you will engage to listen fairly to what I 
have to say, and then, so help you God, you will decide, 
come up and take a front seat.” 

That was a great talk. It made a tremendous impres¬ 
sion. I saw men who had never made a move in their 
lives just get right up and take a front seat. When he 
got them up there, about fifty or sixty men and women, he 
just stood down before them, and talked to them, and 
showed them the things on which they were to make a 
decision; and he would not let them get up and leave 


BIRTH OF MOSES 


49 


i-n] 

until they had made a decision one way or the other. 
Some of them were converted the first day; some as soon 
as they had started on that pledge that they would reach 
a conclusion. What is it that Shakespeare says of some¬ 
thing that “ causes all our resolutions to turn awry and 
lose the name of action ” ? What is it that Patrick Henry 
said when he was trying to get the House of Burgesses 
to come to a decision: “ Shall we gain strength by irreso¬ 
lution and inaction ? ” What does anybody ever gain by 
such a course? 

Take the first period of the life of Moses, and we 
find it all preparatory. God had made a revelation to him 
that he was to deliver the people. He believed that 
through that people Christ would come. He could not 
have made that decision without faith. Faith was the 
great principle that caused his parents to defy the author¬ 
ity of the mighty king and not to have fear of him. 
Faith conquers the world. 

Now we come to the mistake of Moses. Bob Ingersoll 
talks about the mistakes of Moses, but what he calls 
mistakes are not mistakes. We do come to a mistake, 
though. It was not a mistake to turn around and say, 
“ I deliberately, voluntarily, and forever step down and 
out; I refuse any longer to be called the son of Pharaoh’s 
daughter; I do not belong there. That is not my crowd; 
I cast my lot with these afflicted people.” No mistake 
was there. “ Now, I am going to take a look at my 
people. I’m going to visit them and see for myself how 
these burdens are put on them.” No mistake is there. 
Where, then, did Moses make a mistake? He made the 
kind of mistake that Rebekah and Jacob made. There 
was a promise of God that the elder should serve the 
younger; and so they concluded that they would hurry up 
God’s purpose. And Moses sinned by not waiting for 


50 


EXODUS 


[i-n 

God’s providence to open the way by which he was to 
deliver the people. He ought not to have shaken the 
hour-glass and tried to make the sand run out faster. 
When he saw that taskmaster inhumanly and unjustly 
smiting a Hebrew, he killed him. God did not tell him 
that that was the way it was to be done. God said, “ You 
must deliver my people,” but He did not tell him to do it 
on his own judgment. He covered the Egyptian up in the 
sand; possessed with the same idea that when he saw two 
of his brethren quarrelling he just stepped up with the air 
of a deliverer and began to settle that case, and they re¬ 
fused to be settled. In other words, he came without cre¬ 
dentials and with only his “ say-so,” and with no proof 
from God that he was to deliver the people. So they 
rejected him and Pharaoh sought to kill him. 

Turn again to Hebrews xi, 27: “ By faith he forsook 
Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king; for he en¬ 
dured, as seeing him who is invisible.” Now, his going 
out of Egypt is not generally understood. A great many 
people say he was a coward and was afraid. He fled by 
faith, under divine promptings. It was not the fear of 
the king that drove him into banishment, but he seemed 
to understand that his preparation was not complete, and 
there was something he had not yet received, and all 
through that forty years of the second period of his life 
“ he endured as seeing him who is invisible.” 

Now, let us look at that forty-years’ period. He con¬ 
cluded to go where he would be out of the power of 
Pharaoh and he went to the safest place in the Sinaitic 
Peninsula, partly occupied by the Midianites and partly 
by the Amalekites; and he comes like Eliezer and Jacob 
came, and like everybody else in those desert countries 
comes, to the well. The well was a great place of meeting, 
just like a windmill in South Texas. There he sees some 


i-ii] BIRTH OF MOSES 51 

girls, as they frequently water the cattle in those coun¬ 
tries; and some shepherds were driving them away. 
Moses was a soldier and he never stopped to count. The 
chivalry in which he had been reared in the character of 
a prince, urged him forward, and he put those herdsmen 
to flight, and helped the girls water the cattle. That is 
a fair mark of esteem to young ladies, and always will be. 
Just let a man show that he is a man, and has a respectful 
and kind feeling for womanhood, the name of mother, 
wife and sister, and that he will not see brutal men 
trample on the rights, privileges and courtesies that are 
due to the women, and that man is going to be popular 
with the women, and justly so. His very bearing an¬ 
nounced that he was a kingly man, and according to the 
rapid manner in which such things are consummated, he 
married. This Midianitish sheik to whom he came gave 
him one of his daughters, Zipporah, who was sometimes 
called the Ethiopian woman. Therefore, some people say 
that Moses married a negress. There is not a word of 
truth in it. There was a “ Cush ” in Africa, but there was 
also a “ Cush ” in Southern Arabia, not like some who 
made the Midianites the descendants of Esau. If you will 
read Genesis xxv, you will find that Midian was a de¬ 
scendant of Abraham, through Keturah; that the Midian¬ 
ites and Ishmaelites lived together. They were close akin; 
one, the descendants of Abraham through Keturah; the 
other the descendants of Abraham through Hagar. But 
after all, that marriage of Moses was not a good mar¬ 
riage. That wife never sympathized with the great work 
that God had given him to do, and she “ cut up ” much 
when he circumcised the first child which Moses weakly 
allowed her to govern. So the second child was not cir¬ 
cumcised ; and it almost cost him his life, as we shall soon 
learn. There is not a line in the Bible which shows that 


52 


EXODUS 


[i-n 

that woman stood up to her husband in any godly thing 
which he attempted to do. But he stayed there and in 
that forty years he got an education of incalculable value. 
The sublimity of the great mountain scenery, the solitude 
of those desert plains, the silent communing with God 
under a brilliant galaxy of stars that shine brighter there 
than perhaps in any other portion of the world; there he 
meditated; there he came in touch with the people of the 
book of Job. There I think he wrote that book of Job, 
which I think is the first book of the Bible written, sug¬ 
gesting the afflictions of his people unjustly being ground 
to powder, harmonizing with the thoughts of the book of 
Job, viz.: afflictions sent upon the righteous through no 
fault of theirs. Job was a contemporary of Moses. It 
was the easiest thing in the world for him to get in touch 
with all the history. There he studies the ways of getting 
through that wilderness, and a man needs a guide, even 
now, through that country. He learned all about the 
water courses, and the proper stopping places; how to en¬ 
dure the desert life for forty years; forty years of the 
greatest displays of divine power that the world has ever 
witnessed. 

Now, in this chapter we can go no further. That forty 
years is ended, and we will next take up the beginning of 
the last forty years of the life of Moses, when God comes 
to him and says, “ I told you at first that you were to de¬ 
liver this people. The time has come. I will show you 
how to do it.” 


EXAMINATION QUESTIONS 

1. Derivation of the word “ Moses”? 

2. Give names of his tribe, parents, brother and sister. 

3. What oppressive Egyptian law was in force at his birth? 

4. What three passages of Scripture describe his physical 


i-n] BIRTH OF MOSES 53 

appearance at birth, and what traditions of his presence and 
beauty of person? 

5. How did the faith of his parents in three distinct particu¬ 
lars save the child from the Egyptian law? 

6. What opportunities had his parents to preoccupy his 
mind with the faith of his father, and the evidence of their 
success ? 

7. What the Old Testament material for a life of Moses? 

8. Cite the special New Testament scriptures throwing light 
on his life. 

9. Into what three equal periods was his life divided? 

10. How much of his 120 years was devoted to preparation, 
(2) compare this with the period of preparation in the case 
of John the Baptist, and of our Lord, and (3) the bearing of 
these facts on the time, labour and cost we should devote to the 
preparation for our life’s work? 

11. What the constituent elements of his education in this 
long preparation? Ans.—His home training fixing character and 
faith; (2) Egyptian education of a prince; (3) service in official 
positions in Egypt; (4) forty years of retirement and medita¬ 
tion. 

12. In what did “ learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians ” 
consist? Have you read Tom Moore’s “Epicurean”? Ans.—• 
The Egyptian learning was very great in mathematics, mechanics, 
astronomy, agriculture, architecture, hieroglyphics and symbols, 
government, economics, sanitation, embalming, war, diplomacy, 
etc. The priestly ritual and theology was extensive, mystical, 
burdensome and most of it profitless. 

13. How did retirement and meditation in Midian for so 
long a time prove helpful to his character and work in the 
active period of his life, and (3) what is the great defect of 
modern preparation? 

14. What New Testament apostle sought retirement, and for 
how long, in this very region, before commencing active work? 
What evidences of its helpfulness to him? 

15. At what age did he make his great decision? 

16. What New Testament passage indicates that a previous 
revelation from God as to his future work influenced this de¬ 
cision ? 

17. Cite precisely the New Testament statement of this choice. 

18. According to this statement, by what principle or grace 
was the choice made? 

19. Following the lecture, analyze this New Testament pas¬ 
sage as if for a sermon outline (see also Dr. Carroll’s sermon 
on “Choice of Moses”). 

20. What the literary productions of Moses and their im¬ 
portance, and show that, so far as literary fame is concerned, 
the “ recompense of the reward ” to which he looked was greater 


54 EXODUS [i-n 

and more enduring than could have come from resting in the 
“learning of the Egyptians.” 

Answer: (i) The Pentateuch; (2) Psalm xc; and probably 
the book of Job. From this Psalm is a song which is and will 
be sung in heaven. 

21. Wherein did Moses make a mistake in his first effort to 
be a deliverer? 

Answer: (1) As to time; the predicted time of deliverance 
had not come; (2) as to method—deliverance was not to be by 
the sword; (3) as to readiness—on his own part, Israel’s part 
and Pharaoh’s part. 

22. Cite New Testament passage showing that a motive 
mightier than fear of Pharaoh, as set forth in Exodus ii, 14, 15, 
influenced his voluntary exile. 

23. What were the ties of kindred between Israelites, Ish- 
maelites and Midianites? 

24. Locate Midian and show its touch with the land of Job. 

25. What the arguments tending to prove that Moses in 
Midian wrote the book of Job as the first Bible book written? 

Answers: (1) As Midian, where Moses lived forty years, 
touched Job’s country, as there was much intercommunication, as 
both were occupied by Semite population, Moses had exceptional 
opportunity to learn of Job. 

(2) All the internal evidence shows that Job lived in patriarchal 
times, anywhere between Abraham and Moses, and all the idioms 
of speech in the book show that the author lived near the times 
of the scenes described. No late author could have so projected 
his style so far back. 

(3) The correspondences between the Pentateuch and the 
book of Job are abundant and marvellous. 

(4) The man who wrote the song of deliverance at the Red 
Sea and the matchless poems at the close of Deuteronomy 
(chapters xxxii and xxxiii) is just the man to write the poetic 
drama of Job. 

(5) The problem of the book of Job, the undeserved afflic¬ 
tions of the righteous, was the very problem of the people of 
Moses. 

(6) The profound discussions in the book call for just such 
learning, wisdom, philosophy and oriental fire as Moses alone 
of his age possessed. 

(7) The existence and malevolence of a superhuman evil 
spirit (Job i and ii) alone could account for these afflictions, 
a being of whom Job himself might be ignorant, but well known 
to Moses in the power behind the magicians and idolatries of 
Egypt. 

(8) The purpose of the book to show, first, the necessity of a 
written revelation (Job xxxi, 35) and, second, the necessity of 
a daysman, mediator, redeemer (Job ix, 33) to stand between 
God and sinful man—both point to a period when there was no 


BIRTH OF MOSES 


55 


i-n] 

written revelation and no clear understanding of the office of 
the Daysman in the plan of salvation, and the necessity of a 
manifestation of God, visible, audible, palpable and approachable 
(Job xxiii, 3-9)—all indicate a period when there was no Bible, 
but a desire for one, revealing the Daysman and forecasting His 
incarnation, and make the presumption strong that Job was the 
first book of the Bible to be written—and such a book could 
find no author but Moses. 

(9) The book must have been written by a Jew to obtain a 
place in the canon of the Scriptures. All the conditions meet in 
Moses and in him alone of all men. 


V 


MOSES AT THE BURNING BUSH 
Exodus II, 23 — V, 14 

O UR chapter commences with Exodus ii, 23: “And 
it came to pass in the course of those many days, 
that the king of Egypt died [the king from 
whom Moses fled was Rameses II] ; and the children of 
Israel sighed by reason of the bondage, and they cried, 
and their cry came up unto God by reason of the bondage. 
And God heard their groaning, and God remembered his 
covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob. 
And God saw the children of Israel, and God took 
knowledge of them.” 

I quote these concluding verses to show that one of the 
obstacles in the way of Moses’ coming back to Egypt was 
removed, the death of the king that sought his life. 
Secondly, to show that God, seeing all the oppression 
perpetrated upon this race, hears their groanings; that 
He remembered every promise of every covenant that He 
ever made. How, when He saw their piteous condition 
and heard their prayers and groanings, He recalled the 
covenants that He had made with Abraham. The time is 
now passing rapidly and the very day is approaching that 
He promised to deliver them. So we have now to con¬ 
sider how God answers those prayers which they sent up 
to Him. In the first place, He has to prepare an earthly 
deliverer, and that is Moses. Then He has to prepare the 

56 


II - v] MOSES AT THE BURNING BUSH 57 

people to receive Moses. He next has to prepare Pharaoh 
to receive Moses. These are the three great prepara¬ 
tions. 

Our chapter has to do, first, with Moses. In certain sea¬ 
sons of the year the best pasturage in the Sinaitic Penin¬ 
sula is to be found on the slopes of the highest mountains. 
So we find Moses bringing the flocks of Jethro to Mt. 
Horeb. Horeb is a range like the Blue Ridge, and Sinai 
is a peak of that range. Sometimes the word Horeb is 
used, and sometimes Sinai. You will notice that this 
mountain is already called “ the Mount of God.” It 
had that reputation before the days of Moses. Right on 
the supposed spot where this burning bush appeared was 
afterwards a convent, which is still standing, and in that 
convent is to be found the great Sinaitic manuscript. See 
how things connect with that mountain. Now in that 
mountain God begins to prepare Moses by appealing to 
his sight and to his hearing and to his heart. The sight 
was an acacia bush on fire and yet not consumed. This 
was a symbol of the children of Israel in Egypt; though 
in the fiery furnace of affliction, they were not destroyed. 
This truth is set forth in Daniel, where the three Hebrew 
children were thrown into the fiery furnace, and God 
was with them and preserved them from destruction. The 
burning bush is one of the most comforting symbols in all 
the Bible to the people of God. The thought is expressed 
in a great hymn: “How firm a foundation , Ye saints of 
the Lord!” God is always with His people, in sickness, 
in flood, in fire. He is with them to care for them. This 
sight attracted Moses, and he drew near to see why that 
bush did not burn up with such a large fire. Then a voice 
came from the bush, telling him to take his sandals off; 
that he was standing on holy ground, and then to draw 
nigh, telling him who it was talking to him; that He was 


58 


EXODUS 


[n-v 

the God of Abraham, and of Isaac and of Jacob; that He 
had seen the awful oppression of the Jewish people in 
Egypt; that He had heard all their prayers; and now He 
was come down to deliver them out of all those troubles, 
and to give them a good country, a land flowing with 
milk and honey. And thus winds up the ioth verse: 
“ Come now therefore, and I will send thee unto Pharaoh, 
that thou mayest bring forth my people the children of 
Israel out of Egypt.” He was to select a human de¬ 
liverer : “ I will send thee.” 

It is an interesting study, whenever God calls people to 
do great things, to note the varied attitudes of these 
people to these calls. God appeared to Isaiah in a vision 
and Isaiah instantly responded: “ Here am I; send me.” 
God appeared to Jeremiah, and he said, “ O Lord God, I 
cannot go, I am but a little child.” He appears to Moses. 
Just look at the objection made by Moses: “ Who am I, 
that I should go unto Pharaoh, and that I should bring 
the children of Israel out of Egypt? ” Moses takes a look 
at himself and sees nothing in himself competent to do 
that great work. We all do that way if we look at our¬ 
selves. What was God’s answer to that objection? 
“ Certainly I ’Will he with thee ” If God is with us then 
any objection based on our littleness of whatever kind is 
a poor objection. God then gives him a token which is 
this: that when he had brought those people out, he was 
to bring them right to that mountain where He was talk¬ 
ing, where the bush was burning, right there, to worship 
Plim. God practically said, “ There is a token that you 
can bring them out; if I am with you and you get back to 
this mountain with that great crowd of people assembled 
at the foot of it, then you will look back and say, 4 Why 
did I say to God, “ Who am I that I should do this great 
deed? ”’ ” 


n-v] MOSES AT THE BURNING BUSH 59 

Moses raises this objection: “ When I come to the 

children of Israel, and say unto them, The God of your 
fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, 
What is his name ? what shall I say unto them ? ” He is 
looking ahead at difficulties. “ When I go back to those 
millions of slaves and say, ‘ The God of your fathers sent 
me to deliver you/ they will say, ‘ What is His name ? 
Who is the God of our fathers ? ’ ” The Lord gives him 
an answer and takes that objection out of the way: 
“ Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, Jehovah, 
the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God 
of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you. 
This is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto 
all generations.” Jehovah means a Covenant-God; a mani¬ 
festing God; and He tells Moses what to say to them. 
You gather them together and tell them that Jehovah says, 
“ I come to bring you out of Egypt and to give you a land 
flowing with milk and honey.” And He says, “ They will 
hearken. Then you take the elders of Israel with you and 
go to the king of Egypt and make this demand of him: 
that you may go three days’ journey in the wilderness to 
make a sacrifice to Jehovah.” Now God forewarned him, 
saying, “ I know that Pharaoh will not give his consent,” 
and gives him at least one explanation, viz.: “ I will 
harden the heart of Pharaoh that he shall not let them go.” 
In the next chapter we take up that question of hardening. 
There are twenty places in this connection where the 
hardening is mentioned; in ten Pharaoh hardens his own 
heart; and in the other ten God hardens it. To this you 
will find some references in Romans xi. It is a subject we 
need to study: how we harden our hearts; and how God 
hardens them. The reason that God tells Moses that he 
is going to harden Pharaoh’s heart is to prevent him from 
being disappointed. He says: “ Don’t be discouraged, 


60 


EXODUS 


[n-v 

I have a hand in it myself, and am letting you know about 
it beforehand. I will bring you forth, and you will say to 
him, that if he does not let Israel, my firstborn, go, I will 
take his firstborn.” 

Now comes the next objection of Moses: “ You tell 
me to go, but I am nothing. You say you will go with 
me. When I object that the people will ask for your name 
you will give me the name and I will tell them what you 
tell me. But they will not believe, nor hearken unto my 
voice. They will say Jehovah hath not appeared unto 
me.” Now Jehovah gives three signs in answer to that 
objection, (i) “ What is this in your hand? ” “ A rod, 
a shepherd’s staff.” “ Throw it on the ground.” It be¬ 
came a serpent and Moses fled from it. “ Take it by the 
tail,” and it again became a rod in his hand. That is a 
sign. Egypt is called Rahab; that is, a serpent. Now 
God is going to attack Egypt on the line of the serpent. 
Reference to this can be found in Job, and in several of 
the prophecies. The first sign, then, is the converting, 
at pleasure, of the rod into a serpent, and of the serpent 
back into a rod. (2) The second sign is for the benefit 
of the people: “ Put your hand into your bosom.” It 
becomes white with leprosy. “ Put it back into your 
bosom,” and it becomes whole again. That means that 
God will heal his people. (3) Now, the third sign was: 
“ Take a little of the water of the Nile; throw it up and 
it will turn to blood.” That was a stroke at the gods of 
Egypt. These were the three signs to confirm the fact 
that Moses was accredited of God to the Children of Is¬ 
rael. 

Now, we will see the next objection: “ Oh, Lord, I 
am not eloquent, neither heretofore, nor since thou hast 
spoken unto thy servant; for I am slow of speech, and of 
a slow tongue” (Exodus iv, 10). That neither meant 


ii-v] MOSES AT THE BURNING BUSH 61 

that he was a stammerer, like Demosthenes, nor that he 
had no ready command of language, like Oliver Cromwell 
and John Knox, originally, and like Senator Coke when 
he first started out to be a public speaker. The reply to 
that objection is: “ Who hath made man’s mouth? or who 
maketh a man dumb, or deaf, or seeing, or blind? is it 
not I, Jehovah? Now therefore go, and I will be with thy 
mouth, and teach thee what thou shalt speak.” In other 
words, He says, “ Your being eloquent or not being elo¬ 
quent has nothing to do with it. You have to deliver a 
message. If you had to write a composition that would 
charm Pharaoh so that he would let the Children of Israel 
go, it would be a different matter.” Moses replied: 
“ Oh, Lord, send, I pray thee, by the hand of him whom 
thou wilt send.” It is hard to understand what Moses 
meant by that. It has generally been supposed to mean: 
“ Send by anybody you please, so you let me alone.” 
But I question whether that is the meaning. It seems 
rather to have this meaning: “ I have told you my incom¬ 
petency, and now I will do it if you want me to, but if 
this business turns out badly, remember that I knew bet¬ 
ter than you did about it and I protested.” That made the 
Lord angry. So far as we know He never was angry at 
Moses but twice; the next time He gets angry it will cost 
Moses the right to enter the Promised Land in the flesh. 
But God meets that objection by telling him about Aaron, 
the older brother. “ He is eloquent and he cometh forth 
to meet thee.” God had sent Aaron to meet him right 
there at that very mountain. “ I will give you an elo¬ 
quent man, but after a while your eloquent man may 
introduce a golden calf to your people.” 

There was another objection in the mind of Moses, 
though he did not state it: “ I am employed by my 

father-in-law, having charge of his sheep, and I must 


62 


EXODUS 


[ii-v 

close up this business before I can go into Egypt.” So 
he goes to Jethro and states the case: that he wants to go 
to Egypt and look into the condition of his people to see 
if they are alive. But he does not tell what God said. 
Jethro consents. Every year of my life I strike somebody 
who is not ready to do the Lord’s will on account of 
some business he can’t turn loose. 

There is still another objection revealed in verse 19: 
“ All the men are dead that sought thy life.” Moses has 
waited until God spoke to him again and reveals another 
objection in his mind. There is still another trouble; he 
starts with his wife and two children, and he has not 
complied with the covenant of God. He has not circum¬ 
cised that last child, and God meets him by the way to 
slay him, and Moses knows why. His wife knows why. 
God puts the case before the woman this way: “You 
have objected to the circumcision of this child, and now 
if you persist in your objection you will lose your hus¬ 
band. He cannot go to deliver this people and be a 
covenant-breaker himself.” So she circumcised the child. 
Moses then sent back Zipporah and the two children to 
Jethro. When he gets back to Sinai with the children of 
Israel, Jethro brings them back to him. 

You see how in preparing that man to do a work the 
difficulties had to be gotten out of the way. When he was 
in Egypt he knew he was to deliver the people, and in his 
own way rushed out to bring it about, and met with a re¬ 
pulse which threw him farther off than before. He comes 
now prepared, and Aaron meets him at Mt. Sinai. These 
two brothers, separated for forty years, start out across 
that desert to Egypt to deliver millions of people from 
bondage. I will read what a poet, Dr. W. C. Wilkinson, 
in his “ Epic of Moses,” says about that. “ The Epic of 
Moses,” Part I, page 43, reads thus: 


ii-v] MOSES AT THE BURNING BUSH 63 

“ Those two wayfarers through the wilderness 
Unconsciously upon their shoulders bore 
The trembling weight of boundless destinies; 

Not only did the future of their race 
Hang on them, but the future of the world. 

From east to west, from north to south, nowhere 
Within the round earth’s wide horizon lived 
Any least hope for rescue of mankind 
Entangled sliding down a fatal slope 
That ended in the open-jawed abyss 
Of utter ultimate despair and death— 

Nowhere, save with those Hebrew brethren twain.” 

That on those two Jewish brethren rested the destinies 
of the world is a fine thought admirably expressed. 
Don’t forget this book and its value in interpretation. 

Moses and Aaron get to the place and they assemble the 
elders of the people. That doubtless took some little time, 
as they were scattered. Word was sent rapidly to the 
heads of the different tribes. In vi, 14, the sons of Simeon 
and then the sons of Levi are taken up. Then from the 
heads of the Levites it traces down to Moses and Aaron, 
showing that Moses and Aaron were not the heads of the 
tribe of Levi. They were the descendants of one of the 
heads of the tribe of Levi. So they have no tribal author¬ 
ity over those people, but have a God-given authority. 
When the heads of all the tribes were assembled, they 
fairly state the message and naturally, questionings come 
up: “ How do we know that God sent you ? What is 
His name? What signs do you use?” In the presence 
of all the elders they give all the signs; the elders accept 
them and report to the people; and the people believe 
them. 

They are now prepared to go to Pharaoh. God has 
prepared Moses to accept the work; He has prepared the 
people to accept Moses in the leadership of the work; 
now He must send Moses and Aaron and the elders of the 
people to prepare Pharaoh to hear them. We will take 


64 


EXODUS 


[ii-v 

up their interview: “And afterwards Moses and Aaron 
came, and said unto Pharaoh, Thus saith Jehovah, the 
God of Israel, Let my people go, that they may hold a 
feast unto me in the wilderness. And Pharaoh said, 
Who is Jehovah that I should hearken unto his voice to let 
Israel go? I know not Jehovah, and moreover I will not 
let Israel go. And they said, The God of the Hebrews 
hath met with us: let us go, we pray thee, three days’ 
journey into the wilderness, and sacrifice unto Jehovah 
our God, lest he fall upon us with pestilence, or with the 
sword. And the king of Egypt said unto them, Where¬ 
fore do ye, Moses and Aaron, loose the people from their 
works? get you unto your burdens. And Pharaoh said, 
Behold, the people of the land are now many, and ye 
make them rest from their burdens.” 

And he commanded their taskmasters that the people 
should do an equal amount of work and gather the straws 
for themselves, and if they did not succeed their Hebrew 
officers were to be beaten publicly. They were beaten and 
they appealed unto Pharaoh, and he referred them to 
Moses and Aaron. They charged Moses and Aaron 
with having brought this extra oppression upon them. 
You see these people are not ready. These head men, 
just as soon as a little trouble came, are ready to repu¬ 
diate Moses and Aaron whom they have just accepted as 
leaders. Moses takes the case to God in prayer; and 
Jehovah replies to him by telling him that He knew that 
Pharaoh would not let them go. Now they must go be¬ 
fore Pharaoh and demonstrate to him that Jehovah is 
God, and in the next chapter we will take up this whole 
transaction between Moses and Pharaoh, or as Paul says, 
“ Jannes and Jambres, the priests that withstood Moses.” 

Our next chapter will consider that double hardening. 
Let each reader look out the twenty passages that refer to 


ii”vJ MOSES AT THE BURNING BUSH 65 

the hardening—ten in which God hardens Pharaoh’s 
heart, and ten where Pharaoh hardens his own heart. 
Then we will take up the ten plagues one after another. 

EXAMINATION QUESTIONS 

1. Give circumstances and object of Jehovah's meeting Moses. 

2. What the symbolism of the burning bush? 

3. State in order the several objections of Moses to becoming 
the deliverer of Israel, and Jehovah’s reply thereto. 

4. Meaning of the name: “I am that I am”? 

5. Cite from the New Testament the words of Jesus claiming 
this name. 

6. What token did Jehovah give Moses to assure him of suc¬ 
cess in delivering Israel? 

7. What three attesting signs and their significance? 

8. What two preachers have great sermons on “ What is in 
thy hand?” and “Take it by the tail,” and what book has the 
substance of both sermons? 

Answer: The book is Pentecost’s “ Deliverance from Egypt,” 
or “ Bible Readings on the First Twelve Chapters of Exodus.” 

9. Give and illustrate the heart of the meaning of “ What is 
in thy hand?” 

10. What part has eloquence in the salvation of men and dis¬ 
tinguish between true and rhetorical eloquence and what says 
Paul of the latter? 

Answer: I Corinthians ii, 1-5. 

11. What troubles later came through the “eloquent” brother 
of Moses? 

12. Why did God meet Moses on his way to deliver Israel 
to kill him, and explain, applying the whole incident in Exodus 
iv, 24-26. 

13. Where the scripture showing that after this incident 
Moses sent back his wife and children to the father-in-law? 

14. What three scriptures seem to indicate the marriage of 
Moses with Zipporah was unfortunate? 

Answer: (1) Exodus iv, 24-26, shows that his wife had no 
sympathy for his faith ; (2) Numbers xxii, 1, 2, shows that she had 
no sympathy for his sister and brother, and was the occasion of 
their revolt; (3) Judges xviii, 30, according to the Hebrew text, 
has Moses, not Manasseh, as the grandfather of the Levite Jona¬ 
than, who served as priest for the Danite idolaters. 

15. Numbers xii, 1, 2, refers to Zipporah; how do you explain 
her being called an “Ethiopian”? 

Answer: The Hebrew word rendered “ Ethiopian ” in the 
Common Version is “ Cushite,” and the descendants of Cush 
were not confined to Ethiopia in Africa. Many of them were 


66 EXODUS [ii-v 

on the Euphrates and in Arabia. Doubtless Zipporah’s mother 
was an Arabian Cushite, certainly not a negress. 

16. In Exodus iii, 18, we have God’s first message to Pharaoh, 
given at the bush, but give the form of the message repeated 
by Moses as when later he set out from Jethro’s home. 

17. How does a prophet, long afterwards, and the New Testa¬ 
ment, still later, use this message to prove that Israel, as a 
nation, was a type of our Lord? 

Answer: See Hosea xi, 1, and Matthew ii, 15. 

18. What infidel criticisms have been offered on the morality 
of “ spoiling the Egyptians ” as commanded by Jehovah in 
Exodus iii, 21, 22, repeated in xi, 1-3, and obeyed in xii, 33-36? 

Answer: The criticisms were based on the rendering “ borrow ” 
in the Common Version of Exodus iii, 21, but Standard R. V. 
rendering clears the difficulty. The jewels are given freely be¬ 
cause God had given His people favour with the Egyptians that 
dreadful night when the firstborn were slain. In this way Israel 
received compensation for years of uncompensated slave labour. 

19. What much later story has Josephus about this matter? 

Answer: He tells that when Alexander the Great was master 

of Jerusalem the Egyptians presented a claim against the Jews 
for these borrowed jewels, and the Jews agreed to pay the claim 
if the Egyptians would settle their claim in offset for the years 
of enforced and unpaid slave labour. 

20. Give an account of the meeting of Moses and Aaron, and 
why should Aaron come to seek Moses? 

21. What great epic of Moses commended to the class and 
what excellency pointed out as compared with other poems on 
Biblical themes? 

22. Cite the passage in this epic on Moses and Aaron setting 
forth from Sinai to deliver Israel. 

23. Tell of the meeting of Moses and Aaron with the elders 
of Israel and the result. 



VI 


THE TEN PLAGUES, OR THE GREAT DUEL 


Exodus V, 15— XII, 37 



HE present chapter will be upon the great duel 


(as Dr. Sampey is pleased to call it) between 


* Moses and Pharaoh, or in other words, the Ten 
Plagues. I have mapped out, as usual, some important 
questions. 

What the scope of the lesson? From Exodus v, 15, to 
xii, 37. What is the theme of the lesson? The Ten 
Plagues, or God’s answer to Pharaoh’s question: “ Who 
is the Lord?” What the central text? Exodus xii, 12: 
“ Against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment.” 
What was the purpose of these plagues? Generally as 
expressed in Exodus ix, 16: “That my name may be 
declared throughout all the earth,” i. e., to show that 
Jehovah was the one and only God. The second object 
was to show to Israel that Jehovah was a covenant-keep¬ 
ing God. The first object touched outsiders. As it 
touched Moses it was to show that God would fully ac¬ 
credit him as the leader. How was Moses accredited? 
By the power to work miracles. Let the reader under¬ 
stand, if you never knew it before, that Moses is the 
first man mentioned in the Bible who worked a miracle, 
though God had worked some miracles directly before 
this. But Moses was God’s first agent to work miracles, 
duly commissioned to bear a message to other men. 


67 


68 


EXODUS 


[v-xn 

On the general subject of miracles, I wish to offer the 
remark, that there are three great groups of miracles, 
viz.: The plagues of Egypt, the miracles wrought by 
Elisha, and the miracles wrought by Christ and the apos¬ 
tles. And from the time of Moses, every now and then 
to the time of Christ, some prophet was enabled to work 
a miracle. These are the groups. But what is a miracle ? 
When we come to the New Testament we find four 
words employed, all expressed in Greek. One word ex¬ 
presses the effect of the miracle on the beholder, a 
“wonder.” Another expresses the purpose, a “sign” 
Another expresses the energy or “power” while still 
another expresses the “ work ”; i.e., " wonders, signs, 
powers, works” As we have come to miracles for 
the first time, it would be a good thing for every reader 
to read the introductory part of Trench, or some 
other author—Trench is the best. We come back to our 
question, What is a miracle? Take this for a definition: 

(1) “An extraordinary event” That is the first idea. 
If it is an ordinary event you cannot call it wonderful. 
It is not a miracle that the sun should rise in the east. 
It would be a miracle for it to be seen rising in the west. 

(2) This extraordinary event is discernible by the 
senses. (3) It apparently violates natural lazus and prob¬ 
abilities. I say “ apparently,” because we do not know 
that it actually does. (4) It is inexplicable by natural 
laws alone. (5) It is produced by the agency of God, 
and is sometimes produced immediately. (6) For re¬ 
ligious purposes; usually to accredit a messenger or at¬ 
test God's revelation to him. 

I am going to call your attention to some definitions 
that are either imperfect or altogether wrong. Thomas 
Aquinas, a learned doctor of the Middle Ages, says that 
miracles are events wrought by divine power apart from 


THE TEN PLAGUES 


69 


v-xn] 

the order generally observed in nature. That is simply 
an imperfect definition; good as far as it goes. Hume 
and Spinoza, a Jew, say, “ A miracle is a violation of a 
natural law; therefore,” says Spinoza, “ impossible ”; 
“ therefore,” says Hume, “ incredible.” It is not neces¬ 
sarily a violation of natural laws: for instance, if I turn 
a knife loose, the law of gravitation would make it fall, 
but if a wind should come in between, stronger than the 
law of gravitation, and this natural law should hold the 
knife up, it would not be a violation of the natural law; 
simply one natural law overcoming another. Therefore, 
it is wrong to say that a miracle is a violation of natural 
law. Jean Paul, a noted critical sceptic, says, “ Miracles 
of earth are the laws of heaven.” Renan says: “ Mira¬ 
cles are the inexplicable.” Schleiermacher says, “ Mira¬ 
cles are relative, that is, the worker of them only antici¬ 
pates later knowledge.” Dr. Paulus says, “ The ac¬ 
count of miracles is historical, but the history must sig¬ 
nify simply the natural means.” Wolsey says, “ The text 
that tells us about miracles is authentic, but the miracles 
are allegories, not facts.” Now I have given you what I 
conceive to be a correct definition of a miracle and some 
definitions that are either imperfect or altogether faulty. 

When may miracles be naturally expected? When 
God makes new revelations; as, in the three epochs of 
miracles. 

To what classes of people are miracles incredible? 
Atheists, pantheists and deists. Deists recognize a God 
of physical order. Pantheists make no distinction be¬ 
tween spirit and matter. Atheists deny God altogether. 

What are counterfeit miracles? We are going to 
strike some soon, and we have to put an explanation on 
them. In II Thessalonians ii they are said to be “ lying 
wonders,” or deeds. They are called “ lying ” not because 


70 


EXODUS 


[v-xii 

they are lies, but because their object is to teach a lie, 
or accredit a lie. Unquestionably, Satan has the power 
to do supernatural things, so far as we understand the 
laws of nature, and when the Antichrist comes he is to be 
endowed with power to work miracles that will deceive 
everybody in the world but the elect. It is not worth 
while, therefore, to take the position that the devil and his 
agents cannot, by permission of God, work miracles. 

When may we naturally expect counterfeit miracles? 
When the real miracles are produced the counterfeit will 
appear as an offset. Whenever a religious imposture of 
any kind is attempted, or any false doctrine is preached, 
they will claim that they can attest it. For example, on 
the streets of our cities are those, whatever you call 
them, who claim that Mark xvi is fulfilled in our midst to¬ 
day. What, then, does the counterfeit miracle prove? 
The reality and necessity of the true. Thieves do not 
counterfeit the money of a “ busted ” bank. How may 
you usually detect counterfeit miracles? This is im¬ 
portant : (i) By the immoral character of the producer. 

That is not altogether satisfactory, but it is presumptive 
evidence. (2) If the doctrine it supports or teaches is 
contradictory to truth already revealed and established. 
(3) The evil motive or the end in view. God would not 
work a lot of miracles just for show. When Herod said 
to Christ “ work me a miracle,” Christ refused. Miracles 
are not to gratify curiosity. (4) Its eternal characteris¬ 
tic of emptiness or extravagance. (5) Its lack of sub¬ 
stantial evidence. In the spirit-rapping miracles they 
need too many conditions—put out the light, join hands, 
etc. It is one of the rules of composition as old as the 
classics, never to introduce a god unless there be a 
necessity for a god; and when one is introduced, let what 
he says and does correspond to the dignity and nature of 


THE TEN PLAGUES 


71 


v-xu] 

a god. If that is a rule of composition in dealing with 
miracles it shows that God, as being wise, would not 
intervene foolishly. 

Now, is a miracle a greater manifestation of God’s 
power than is ordinarily displayed by the Lord? No. 
He shows just as much power in producing an almond 
tree from a germ, and that almond tree in the course of 
nature producing buds and blossoms, by regulating the 
order of things, as He does to turn rods to serpents. But 
while the power is no greater, the impression is more 
vivid, and that is the object of a miracle. 

There are, certainly, distinctions in miracles, and you 
will need to know the distinction when you discuss the 
miracles wrought by Moses more than any other set of 
miracles in the Bible. There are two kinds of miracles, 
the absolute and the providential, or circumstantial, e.g., 
the conversion of water into blood is an absolute miracle; 
the bringing of frogs out of the water is a providential 
or circumstantial miracle. Keep that distinction in your 
minds. The plague of darkness and the death of the 
firstborn are also absolute miracles. The providential or 
circumstantial miracles get their miraculous nature from 
their intensity, their connection with the word of Moses, 
the trial of Pharaoh and the Egyptian gods, with the 
deliverance of Israel, and their being so timely as to 
strengthen the faith of God’s people, and to overcome the 
scepticism of God’s enemies. I will give a further idea 
about a providential miracle. Suppose I were to say 
that on a certain day at one o’clock the sun would be 
veiled. If that is the time for an eclipse there is nothing 
miraculous in it. But suppose a dense cloud should shut 
off the light of the sun, there is a miraculous element be¬ 
cause there is no way of calculating clouds as you would 
calculate eclipses. Now, the orderly workings of nature, 


72 


EXODUS 


[v-xn 

“ The heavens declare the glory of God and the firma¬ 
ment showeth his handiwork/’ reveal the glory of God 
to a mind in harmony with God, and they hide the glory 
from the eyes of an alienated man who will not see God 
in the sun, moon and stars. They will turn away from 
the glory of God in these regular events and worship the 
creature more than the creator. 

Does a miracle considered by itself prove the truth of 
the doctrine or the divine mission of him who pro¬ 
duces it? Not absolutely. The Egyptians imitated the 
first three miracles. Other things must be considered. 
The doctrine must commend itself to the conscience as 
being good. All revelation presupposes in a man power 
to recognize the truth, arising from the fact that man is 
made in the image of God, and has a conscience, and that 
“ Jesus Christ lighteth every man coming into the 
world.” The powers of darkness are permitted to per¬ 
form wonders of a startling nature. The character of 
the performer, the end in view, the doctrine to be attested 
in itself, as related to previously revealed truth, must 
all be considered. In Deuteronomy xiii, 1-5, the people 
are expressly warned against the acceptance of any sign 
or wonder, wrought by any prophet or dreamer, used to 
attest a falsehood. In Matthew xxiv, 24, the Saviour ex¬ 
pressly forewarns that antichrists and false prophets 
shall come with lying signs and wonders, and Paul says 
so in several passages. 

How are miracles helpful, since the simple, unlearned 
are exposed to the danger of accepting the false and re¬ 
jecting the true? This difficulty is more apparent than 
real. The unlearned and poor are exposed to no more 
danger than the intellectual. Those who love previously 
revealed truth and have no pleasure in unrighteousness 
are able to discriminate, whether they are wise folks or 


THE TEN PLAGUES 


73 


v-xn] 

simple folks. The trouble of investigation is no greater 
here than in any other moral problem. Therefore, the 
apostle John says, “ Beloved, try every spirit.” A man 
comes to you and says he is baptized of the Holy Spirit. 
John says, “ Try him, because there are many false 
prophets,” and “ Every spirit that refuses to confess that 
God was manifested in the flesh,” turn him down at once. 
Once Waco was swept away by the Spiritualists. I 
preached a series of sermons on Spiritualism. Once in 
making calls I came upon some strangers, and happened 
to strike a Spiritualist lady who came up to me and said, 
“ I am so glad to meet you. We belong to the same 
crowd. We are both a spiritual people. Let me see your 
hand.” I held it out and she commenced talking on it. 
She says, “ I believe the Bible as much as you do.” I 
said, “ No, you don’t. I can make you abuse the Bible 
in two minutes.” “ Well, I would like to see you try.” 
I read that passage in Isaiah where a woe is pronounced 
upon those who are necromancers and magicians. “ Yes, 
and I despise any such statements,” she said. “ Of 
course,” I replied; “ that is what I expected you to say.” 

The conflict in Egypt was between Jehovah on the one 
hand and the gods of Egypt, representing the powers of 
darkness, on the other. Note these scriptures: Exodus 
xii, 12; xv, 11; Numbers xxxiii, 4. The devil is the 
author of idolatry in all its forms. The battle was be¬ 
tween God and the devil, the latter working through 
Pharaoh and his hosts, and God working through Moses. 

I want to look at the first miracle. A question that 
every reader should note is: State in order the ten 
miracles. First, the conversion of the waters of the 
Nile into blood. Egypt is the child of the Nile. If you 
were up in a balloon and looked down upon that land 
you would see a long green ribbon, the Nile valley and its 


74 


EXODUS 


[v-xn 

fertile banks. Therefore, they worship the Nile. There 
has been a great deal written to show that at certain sea¬ 
sons of the year the waters of the Nile are filled with 
insect life of the animalcule order, so infinitesimal in 
form as to be invisible, even with a microscope, yet so 
multitudinous in number that they make the water look 
like blood. It would be perfectly natural if it only came 
that way. I will tell you why I do not think it came 
that way. This miracle applied to the water which had 
already been drawn up, and was in the water buckets in 
their homes. That makes it a genuine miracle. 

The second miracle was the miracle of the frogs. I 
quote something about that miracle from “ The Epic of 
Moses/’ by Dr. W. C. Wilkinson: 

“ Then Aaron, at his brother’s bidding, raised 
His rod and with it smote the river. Straight 
Forth from the water—at that pregnant stroke 
Innumerably teeming—issued frogs, 

Prodigious progeny! in number such 

As if each vesicle of blood in all 

The volume of the flood that rolled between 

The banks of the Nile and overfilled his bound 

And overflowed, had quickened to a frog, 

And the midsummer tide poured endless down, 

Not water and not blood, but now instead 
One mass of monstrous and colluctant life! 

The streams irriguous over all the realm 
A vast reticulation of canals 
Drawn from the river—like the river, these 
Also were smitten with that potent rod, 

And they were choked with tangled struggling frogs. 

Each several frog was full of lusty youth, 

And each, according to his nature, wished 
More room wherein to stretch himself, and leap 
Amphibious, if he might not swim. So all 
Made for the shore and occupied the land. 

Rank following rank, in serried order, they 
Resistless by their multitude and urged, 

Each rank advancing, by each rank behind— 

An insupportable invasion, fed 


THE TEN PLAGUES 


75 


v-xn] 

With reinforcement inexhaustible 

From the great river rolling down in frogs!— 

Spread everywhere and blotted out the earth. 

As when the shouldering billows of the sea, 

Drawn by the tide and by the tempest driven, 
Importunately press against the shore 
Intent to find each inlet to the land, 

So now this infestation foul explored 
The coasts of Egypt seeking place and space. 

With impudent intrusion, leap by leap 
Advancing, those amphibious cohorts pushed 
Into the houses of the people, found 
Entrance into the chambers where they slept. 

And took possession of their very beds. 

The kneading-troughs wherein their bread was made, 
The subterranean ovens where were baked 
The loaves, the Egyptians with despair beheld 
Become the haunts of this loathed tenantry. 

The palace, nay the person, of the king 
Was not exempt. His stately halls he saw 
Furnished to overflowing with strange guests 
Unbidden, whose quaint manners lacked the grace 
Of well-instructed courtliness; who moved 
About the rooms with unconventional ease 
And freedom, in incalculable starts 
Of movement and direction that surprised. 

They leaped upon the couches and divans; 

They settled on the tops of statues; pumped 
Their breathing organs on each jutting edge 
Of frieze or cornice round about the walls; 

In thronging councils on the tables sat; 

From unimaginable perches leered. 

The summit of procacity, they made 
The sacred person of the king himself, 

He sitting or reclining as might chance, 

The target of their saltatory aim, 

And place of poise and pause for purposed rest. 

Nor yet has been set forth the worst; the plague 
Was also a dire plague of noise. The night 
Incessantly resounded with the croaks, 

In replication multitudinous, 

Of frogs on every side, whether in mass 
Crowded together in the open field, 

Or single and recluse within the house. 

The dismal ululation, every night 
And all night long, assaulted every ear; 


76 


EXODUS 


[v-xn 


Nor did the blatant clamour so forsake 
The day, that from some unfrequented place 
Might not be heard a loud, lugubrious, 

Reiterant chorus from batrachian throats.” 

Epic of Moses, Part I, pp. 95-98. 

I think that is one of the finest descriptions I ever 
read. They worshipped frogs. Now they were sur¬ 
feited with their gods. I have space only to refer to the 
next plague, without telling you what it is. I will see if 
you can tell from Dr. Wilkinson’s description of it: 

“ They were like immigrants and pioneers 
Looking for habitations in new lands; 

They camped and colonized upon a man 

And made him quarry for their meat and drink. 

They ranged about his person, still in search 
Of better, ever better, settlement; 

Each man was to each insect parasite 
A new-found continent to be explored. 

Which was the closer torment, those small fangs 
Infixed, and steady suction from the blood, 

Or the continuous crawl of tiny feet 
Ranging the conscious and resentful skin 
In choice of which to sink a shaft for food— 

Which of these two distresses sorer was, 

Were question; save that evermore 

The one that moment pressing sorer seemed.” 

Epic of Moses, Part I, p. 135. 

What was the power of that plague? The Egyptians 
more than any other people that ever lived upon the earth 
believed in ceremonial cleanliness, particularly for their 
priesthood. They were not only spotless white, but de¬ 
filement by an unclean thing was to them like a dip into 
hell itself. 


EXAMINATION QUESTIONS 

1. What the scope of the next great topic in Exodus? 

2. The theme? 

3. The central text? 


THE TEN PLAGUES 


77 


v-xii] 

4. Purpose of the plagues? 

5. How was Moses accredited? 

6. What three great groups of miracles in the Bible? 

7. In the New Testament what four words describe miracles? 
Give both Greek and English words, showing signification of 
each. 

8. What, then, is a miracle? 

9. Cite some faulty definitions. 

10. When may they naturally be expected? 

11. What are counterfeit or lying miracles, and may they be 
real miracles in the sense of being wrought by superhuman 
power, and whose in such case is the power, and what the pur¬ 
pose of its exercise? 

12. To what classes of people are miracles incredible, and 
why? 

13. Cite Satan’s first miracle, its purpose and result. 

Answer: (1) Accrediting the serpent with the power of 

speech; (2) To get Eve to receive him as an angel of light; (3) 
That Eve did thus receive him, and was beguiled. 

14. On this point what says the New Testament about the 
last manifestation of the Antichrist? 

15. When may counterfeit miracles be expected? 

16. Admitting many impostures to be explained naturally, 
could such impostures as idolatries, Mahometanism, Mormonism, 
Spiritualism, witchcraft, necromancy, etc., obtain permanent 
hold on the minds of many peoples without some superhuman 
power? 

17. What do counterfeit miracles prove? 

18. How may they be detected? 

19. What says a great poet about the propriety of introducing 
a god into a story, who was he and where may the classic be 
found? 

Answer: (1) See chapter; (2) Horace; (3) In Horace’s 
“ Ars Poetica.” 

20. Distinguish between the ordinary powers of God working 
in nature and a miracle, e.g., the budding of Aaron’s rod and 
the budding of an almond tree. 

21. What two kinds of miracles? Cite one of each kind from 
the ten plagues. 

22. Of which kind are most of the ten plagues? 

23. Does a miracle in itself prove the truth of the doctrine 
it is wrought to attest? If not, what things are to be con¬ 
sidered ? 

24. Cite both Old Testament and New Testament proof that 
some doctrines attested by miracles are to be rejected. 

25. If Satan works some miracles, and if the doctrines at¬ 
tested by some miracles are to be rejected, how are miracles 
helpful, especially to the ignorant, without powers of discrimina¬ 
tion? 


78 EXODUS [v-xii 

26. Who were the real antagonists in this great Egyptian 
duel? 

27. Give substance and result of the first interview between 
Pharaoh and Moses? 

28. Name in their order of occurrence the ten plagues. 

29. First Plague: State the significance of this plague. 

30. How have some sought to account for it naturally, and 
your reasons for the inadequacy of this explanation? 

31. Second Plague: Recite Dr. Wilkinson’s fine description 
of the plague in his “ Epic of Moses.” 

32. The significance of the plague? 

33. Third Plague: His description of the third plague and 
its significance. 


VII 


THE TEN PLAGUES, OR THE GREAT DUEL 

( Continued ) 

Scripture: Same as preceding chapter 

E VERY plague was intended to strike in some way 
at some deity-worship in Egypt. I begin this 
chapter by quoting from Dr. Wilkinson’s “ Epic 
of Moses ” language which he puts in the mouth of 
Pharaoh’s daughter, the reputed mother of Moses, who is 
trying to persuade the king to let the people go: 


“We blindly worship as a god the Nile; 

The true God turns His water into blood. 
Therein the fishes and the crocodiles, 

Fondly held sacred, welter till they die. 

Then the god Heki is invoked in vain 
To save us from the frogs supposed his care. 
The fly-god is condemned to mockery, 

Unable to deliver us from flies,” etc. 

—Epic of Moses, Part I, p. 231. 


(4) We have discussed three of the plagues, and in 
Exodus viii, 20-32, we consider the plague of flies. Flies, 
or rather beetles, were also sacred. In multitudes of 
forms their images were worn as ornaments, amulets and 
charms. But at a word from Moses these annoying 
pests swarmed by millions until every sacred image was 
made hateful by the living realities. 

(5) The plague of Murrain , Exodus ix, 1-7. Cattle 

79 


80 


EXODUS 


[v-xii 

were sacred animals with the Egyptians. Cows were 
sacred to Isis. Their chief god, Apis, was a bull, stalled 
in a palace, fed on perfumed oats, served on golden 
plates to the sound of music. But at a word from Moses 
the murrain seized the stock. Apis himself died. Think 
of a god dying with the murrain! 

(6) Boils, Exodus ix, 8-12. Egyptian priests were 
physicians. Religious ceremonies were medicines. But 
when Moses sprinkled ashes toward heaven grievous and 
incurable boils broke out on the bodies of the Egyptians. 
King, priests and magicians were specially afflicted; 
could not even stand before Moses. 

(7) Hail, Exodus ix, 13-35. The control of rain and 
hail was vested in feminine deities—Isis, Sate and Neith. 
But at Moses’ word rain and hail—out of season and 
in horrible intensity—swept over Egypt, beating down 
their barley and the miserable remnant of their stock, and 
beating down exposed men, women and children. In 
vain they might cry, “ O Isis, O Sate, O Neith, help us! 
We perish; call off this blinding, choking rain! Re¬ 
buke this hurtling, pitiless storm of hail! ” But the 
Sphinx was not more deaf and silent than Egypt’s god¬ 
desses. 

(8) Locusts, x, 1-20. The Egyptians worshipped 
many deities whose charge was to mature and protect 
vegetables. But at Moses’ word locusts came in inter¬ 
minable clouds, with strident swishing wings and de¬ 
vouring teeth. Before them a garden, behind them a 
desert. See in prophetic imagery the description of their 
terrible power, Joel ii, 2, 11; Revelations ix, 2-11. 

(9) Darkness, Exodus x, 21-xi, 3. Ra, the male 
correlative of Isis, was the Egyptian god of light. A 
triune god, Amun Ra, the father of divine life, Kheeper 
Ra, of animal life, Kneph Ra, of human life. But at 


THE TEN PLAGUES 


81 


v-xn] 

Moses’ word came seventy-two consecutive hours of 
solid, palpable darkness. In that inky, plutonian black¬ 
ness where was Ra ? He could not flush the horizon with 
dawn, nor silver the Sphinx with moonbeams, nor even 
twinkle as a little star. Even the pyramids were invis¬ 
ible. That ocean of supernatural darkness was peopled 
by but one inhabitant, one unspoken, one throbbing con¬ 
viction: “ Jehovah, He is God.” 

(io) Death of the Firstborn, xi, 4-8; xii, 29-35. 
This crowning and convincing miracle struck down at one 
time every god in Egypt, as lightning gores a black 
cloud or rives an oak, or a cyclone prostrates a forest. 
See the effect of this last miracle. The victory was com¬ 
plete. Pharaoh called for Moses and Aaron by night, and 
said, “ Rise up, and get you forth, from among my peo¬ 
ple, both ye and the children of Israel; and go, serve Je¬ 
hovah, as ye have said. Also take your flocks and your 
herds, as ye have said, and be gone; and bless me also. 
And the Egyptians were urgent upon the people that they 
might send them out of the land in haste; for they said 
We be all dead men. And against the children of 
Israel not a dog moved his tongue—against man or beast; 
so the Lord put a difference between the Egyptians and 
Israel” (Exodus xi, 7; xii, 31-35). 

Give the names of the magicians who withstood 
Moses and Aaron and what New Testament lesson is 
derived from their resistance? Paul warns Timothy of 
perilous times in the last days, in which men having the 
form of godliness but denying the power thereof were 
ever learning but never able to come to the knowledge of 
the truth, and thus concludes, “ Now as Jannes and 
Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the 
truth; men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the 
faith, but they shall proceed no further; for their folly 


EXODUS 


82 


[v-xii 


shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was.” That 
is the time which I have so frequently emphasized when 
Paul’s man of sin shall appear and be like Jannes and 
Jambres, who withstood Moses and Aaron. 

Give in their order the methods of Pharaoh’s opposi¬ 
tions to God’s people: (i) Persecution; (2) Imitation 
of their miracles; (3) Propositions of compromise. State 
what miracles they imitated. They changed their rods 
to serpents and imitated to some extent the first three 
plagues. But the rod of Aaron swallowed up theirs and 
they could not remove any plague nor imitate the last 
seven. State the several propositions of compromise; 
show the danger of each, and give the reply of Moses. 
I am more anxious that you should remember these com¬ 
promises than the plagues. 


COMPROMISES PROPOSED 

(1) “Sacrifice in the land of Egypt,” i.e., do not 
separate from us, Exodus viii, 25. This stratagem was 
to place Jehovah on a mere level with the gods of Egypt, 
thus recognizing the equality of the two religions. Moses 
showed the impracticableness of this, since the Hebrews 
sacrificed to their God animals numbered among the 
Egyptian divinities, which would be to them an abomina¬ 
tion. 

(2) “I will let you go—only not very far away,” viii, 
28, that is, if you will separate let it be only a little 
separation. If you will draw a line of demarcation, let it 
be a dim one. Or, if you will so put it that your re¬ 
ligion is light and ours darkness, do not make the dis¬ 
tinction so sharp and invidious; be content with twilight, 
neither night nor day. This compromise catches many 
simple ones to-day. Cf. II Peter ii, 18-22. 


THE TEN PLAGUES 


83 


v-xii] 

(3) “I will let you men go, but leave with us your 
wives and children,” x, 11. This compromise when trans¬ 
lated simply means, “ You may separate from us, but 
leave your hearts behind.” It is an old dodge of the 
devil. Serve whom ye will, but let us educate your 
children. Before the flood the stratagem succeeded: 
“ Be sons of God if you will, but let your wives be 
daughters of men. ,, The mothers will carry the children 
with them. In modern days it says, “ Let grown people 
go to church if they must, but do not worry the children 
with Sunday Schools.” 

(4) “ Go ye, serve the Lord; let your little ones go 

with you; only let your flocks and herds be stayed; ” i.e., 
acknowledge God’s authority over your persons; but not 
over your property. This compromise suits all the stingy, 
avaricious professors who try to serve both God and 
Mammon; their proverb is: “ Religion is religion, but 

business is business.” Which means that God shall not 
rule over the maxims and methods of trade, nor in their 
counting houses, nor over their purses, nor over the six 
workdays, but simply be their God on Sunday at church. 
Well did Moses reply, “ Our cattle shall go with us; there 
shall not an hoof be left behind.” 

These compromises mean anything in the world rather 
than a man should put himself and his wife and his 
children and his property, his everything on earth, on the 
altar of God. Was it proper for the representatives of 
the Christian religion to unite in the Chicago World’s 
Fair Parliament of Religions, including this very Egyp¬ 
tian religion rebuked by the ten plagues? All these 
religions came together and published a book setting 
forth the world’s religions comparatively. 

My answer is that it was a disgraceful and treasonable 
surrender of all the advantages gained by Moses, Elijah, 


84 


EXODUS 


[v-xii 

Jesus Christ and Paul. “ If Baal be God, follow him; 
but if Jehovah be God, follow him.” If neither be God, 
follow neither. Jesus Christ refused a welcome among 
the gods of Greece and Rome. The Romans would have 
been very glad to have made Jesus a deity. But He would 
have no niche in the Pantheon. That Chicago meeting 
was also a Pantheon. The doctrine of Christ expresses: 
“ Be not unequally yoked with unbelievers; for what 
fellowship have righteousness and iniquity ? or what 
communion hath light with darkness? And what con¬ 
cord hath Christ with Belial ? or what portion hath a be¬ 
liever with an unbeliever? And what agreement hath a 
temple of God with idols? for we are a temple of the 
living God; even as God said, I will dwell in them, and 
walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be 
my people. Wherefore come ye out from among them, 
and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch no unclean 
thing; and I will receive you, and will be to you a 
Father, and ye shall be to me sons and daughters, saith 
the Lord Almighty ” (II Corinthians vi, 14-18). “ But I 
say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sac¬ 
rifice to demons, and not to God; and I would not that ye 
should have communion with demons. We cannot drink 
the cup of the Lord, and the cup of demons; ye cannot 
partake of the table of the Lord, and the table of demons. 
Or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger 
than he?” (I Corinthians x, 20-22). 

The supreme fight made in Egypt was to show that 
Jehovah alone is God. He was not fighting for a place 
among the deities of the world, but He was claiming ab¬ 
solute supremacy. When we come to the giving of the 
Law we find: “ Thou shalt have no other gods before 
me,” and “ you shall make no graven image, even of me, 
to bow down to worship it.” It took from the days of 


THE TEN PLAGUES 


85 


v-xn] 

Moses to the days of the Babylonian captivity to establish 
in the Jewish mind the unity of God. All the time they 
were lapsing into idolatry. The prophets fought over the 
same battles that Moses fought. But when God was 
through with those people they were forever settled in 
this conviction, viz.: There is no other God but Jehovah. 
From that day till this no man has been able to find a 
Jewish idolater. Now then it takes from the birth of 
Christ to the beginning of the Millennium to establish in 
the Jewish mind that Jesus of Nazareth is that Jehovah. 
Some Jews accept it of course, but the majority of them 
do not. When the Jews are converted that introduces 
the Millennium, as Peter said of those who had crucified 
the Lord of glory, “ Repent ye: in order that ye may 
send back Jesus whom the heavens must retain until the 
time of the restitution of all things.” 

One matter has been deferred for separate discussion 
until this time. I will be sure to call for twenty passages 
on the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart. Paul has an ex¬ 
planation of them in Romans ix, 17-23, and our good 
Methodist commentator, Adam Clarke, devotes a great 
deal of space in his commentary to weakening what Paul 
said. There are two kinds of hardening: (1) Accord¬ 
ing to a natural law when a good influence is not acted 
upon, it has less force next time, and ultimately no force. 
A certain lady wanted to get up each morning at ex¬ 
actly six o’clock, so she bought an alarm clock, and the 
first morning when the alarm turned loose it nearly made 
her jump out of bed. So she got up and dressed on 
time. But after a while when she heard the alarm she 
would not go to sleep, but she just lay there a little 
while. Sometimes you see a boy stop still in putting on 
his left sock and sit there before the fire. The next time 
this lady heard the alarm clock the result was that it did 


86 


EXODUS 


[v-xii 

not sound so horrible, and she kept lingering until 
finally she went to sleep. Later the alarm would no 
longer awake her. There is a very tender, susceptible 
hardening of a young person under religious impressions 
that brings a tear to the eye. How easy it is to follow 
that first impression, but you put it off and say no, and 
after a while the sound of warning becomes to you like 
the beat of the little drummer’s drum-stick when Na¬ 
poleon was crossing the Alps. The little fellow slipped 
and fell into a crevasse filled with snow, but the brave boy 
kept beating his drum and they could hear it fainter 
and fainter, until it was an echo and then it died 
away. 

(2) The other kind of hardening is what is called 
judicial hardening, where God deals with a man and he 
resists, adopting this or that substitute until God says, 
“ Now you have shut your eyes to the truth; I will make 
you judicially blind and send you a delusion that you may 
believe a lie and be damned.” Paul says, “ Blindness in 
part hath happened unto Israel because they turned away 
from Jesus; because they would not hear his voice, nor 
the voice of their own prophets; because they persecuted 
those who believed in Jesus. There is a veil over their 
eyes when they read the Scripture which cannot be taken 
away until they turn to the Lord and say, Blessed is he 
that cometh in the name of the Lord.” 

Now the last thought: When the first three plagues 
were sent they fell on all Egypt alike. After that, in 
order to intensify the miracle and make it more evidently 
a miracle, in the rest of the plagues God put a difference 
between Egypt and Goshen, where the Israelites lived. 
The line of demarcation was drawn in the fourth plague. 
In the fifth plague it fell on Egypt, not Goshen; the most 
stupendous distinction was when the darkness came, 


THE TEN PLAGUES 


87 


V-XIl] 

just as if an ocean of palpable blackness had in it an 
oasis of the most brilliant light, and that darkness stood 
up like a wall at the border line between Egypt and 
Goshen, bringing out that sharp difference that God put 
between Egypt and Israel. 

I will close with the last reference to the difference in 
the night of that darkness, a difference of blood sprinkled 
upon the portals of every Jewish house. The houses 
might be just alike, but no Egyptian house had the blood 
upon its portals. Wherever the angel of death saw the 
blood he passed over the house and the mother held her 
babe safe in her arms. But in Egypt all the firstborn 
died. 

When I was a young preacher and a little fervid, I was 
preaching a sermon to sinners on the necessity of having 
the blood of sprinkling, which speaketh better things than 
the blood of Abel, and in my fancy I drew this picture: 
A father, gathering all his family around him, says: 
“ The angel of death is going to pass over to-night. Wife 
and children, death is coming to-night; death is coming 
to-night.” “ Well, husband,” says the wife, “ is there no 
way of escaping death ? ” “ There is this: if we take a 
lamb and sprinkle its blood on the portals, the angel will 
see that blood and we will escape.” Then the children 
said, “ Oh, father, go and get the lamb; and be sure to 
get the right kind. Don’t make a mistake. Carry out 
every detail; let it be without blemish; kill exactly at the 
time God said; catch the blood in a basin, dip the bush in 
the blood and sprinkle the blood on the door that the 
angel of death may not enter our house.” Then I ap¬ 
plied that to the unconverted, showing the necessity of 
getting under the shadow of the blood of the Lamb. I 
was a young preacher then, but I do not know that, being 
old, I have improved on the thought. 


88 


EXODUS 


[v-xn 


EXAMINATION QUESTIONS 

1. Name the ten plagues in the order of their occurrence. 

2. Show in each case the blow against some one or more 

gods of Egypt. f _ 

3. What is the most plausible explanation of the first six 
in their relation to each other? 

4. How the hail and locusts? 

5. What modern poet in matchless English and in true in¬ 
terpretation gives an account of these plagues? 

6. How does he state the natural explanation? 

7. How does he express the several strokes at Egypt’s gods? 

8. What the differentiating circumstances of these plagues? 

9. State the progress of the case as it affected the magicians. 

10. State the progress of the case as it affected the people. 

11. State the progress of the case as it affected Pharaoh 
himself. 

12. Give in order Pharaoh’s methods of opposition. 

13. State in order Pharaoh’s proposed compromises and the 
replies of Moses. 

14. State some of the evils of religious compromise. 

15. What about the World’s Fair Parliament of Religions? 

16. What about the Inter-Denominational Laymen’s Move¬ 
ment? And the money of the rich for colleges? 

17. Show how each miracle after the third was intensified 
by putting a difference between Egypt and Israel, as in the 
case of the last plague, and illustrate. 

18. Explain the two kinds of hardening, and cite the twenty 
uses of the word in Pharaoh’s case. 

19. How does Paul use Exodus ix, 16, in Romans ix, and 
how do you reply to Adam Clarke’s explanation of it? 


VIII 


THE INSTITUTION OF THE PASSOVER 
Exodus XII and XIII 

I N considering the plagues we did not consider this 
Passover. We take up first, the •word . In Hebrew 
this means “ to step over,” “ to pass over ”; hence, to 
spare, to have mercy on. Next, the nature of the Pass- 
over. It was essentially a sacrifice. It is called a sacri¬ 
fice in our text and in the New Testament it says that 
Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us. A very few 
Protestants have taken the position that the Passover 
was not a sacrifice, but their position is entirely untenable. 
It was in every sense of the word a sacrifice, and not 
merely a sacrifice, but a substitutionary sacrifice. The 
paschal lamb in each house was to die in the place of the 
firstborn, just as Christ our Passover was sacrificed for 
us. It is intensely substitutionary. And we now come to 
the institution of the ordinance. It was instituted in 
Egypt just before the last plague. As we go on in the 
Old Testament we will see some distinction between the 
Egyptian Passover and the later Passover of the Jews. 
Of course, there would be some distinction between a 
passover celebrated in a marching state and a passover 
when they were settled in the land. But after they were 
settled we find some additions to the Passover, even in 
the time of our Lord. It is not my purpose now to 
notice particularly these differences, but simply to affirm 

89 


EXODUS 



[xii-xiii 


that there were distinctions between the originally estab¬ 
lished Passover and that of subsequent days. 

The next thing is the distinction between the sacrifice 
of the Passover and the feast of the Passover. We look 
first at the sacrifice. The first thing we want to deter¬ 
mine is the time. In the thirteenth chapter it says, 
“ This day you go forth in the month of Abib,” and in 
other passages it is called the month Nisan. The two 
names correspond. The time of the year was in the 
Spring, when the firstfruits of the harvest were gathered. 
This month now becomes an era. In xii, 2, it is said, 
“ This month shall be the beginning of months unto you; 
it shall be the first month of the year to you.” That 
means the ecclesiastical year. They had a civil year, 
which commenced in the Fall, but their ecclesiastical year 
commenced with that Passover. Still speaking about the 
time, on the tenth day of that month the Passover lamb 
was to be selected. On the fourteenth day of the same it 
was to be slain. More exactly, quite a number of pas¬ 
sages say that it was slain in the evening. In the sixteenth 
chapter of Deuteronomy it is said, “ as the sun goes 
down.” In the New Testament we find that custom had 
changed, according to the teaching of the rabbis, who 
held that it meant “ at the turn of the day ”; so the pass- 
over was slain about the ninth hour, which would be at 
three o’clock in the afternoon. The time was then 
Spring, Abib or Nisan, answering to our March or April, 
the lamb selected on the tenth day, to be slain on the four¬ 
teenth, at the going down of the sun. 

We now look at the sacrifice itself. It had to be a 
lambkin or kid, generally a lamb; just a year old and 
without a blemish. Who does the selecting? In the 
Egyptian Passover this was done by the head of every 
family; the priesthood was not yet established. There is, 


91 


xn-xrn] INSTITUTION OF PASSOVER 

as yet, no central place of worship. We learn another 
distinction: If a family was too small to eat a whole 
lamb, then two or more families were united until they 
had enough to eat a lamb. When the lamb was slain what 
was done with the blood, representing the life? It was 
caught in a basin and sprinkled with a bunch of hyssop 
on the two sides of the door and the lintel, the piece across 
the top of the door. It was not sprinkled at the bottom 
because the blood was sacred and not to be stepped on, 
and the sprinkling of the blood made the house sacred 
for everybody who was in it when the blood was put 
there, and all who stayed inside. If one went out, it lost 
the virtue as far as he was concerned. That is the sacred 
part of it. What did the sacrifice-part mean ? That there 
was no natural distinction between the firstborn of 
Israel and the firstborn of Egypt. But by a distinction 
of grace, that blood becomes a substitutionary atonement 
for those sheltered in that house. Thus “ Christ our 
Passover is sacrificed for us.” Who was to kill the lamb? 
The whole congregation of Israel participated in the 
killing. Later, we see a distinction based on the settle¬ 
ment and upon the establishment of the priesthood. 

We now come to the feast. What was done with the 
body of the lamb? It was not boiled, not fried, but 
roasted. Then all that household assembled together. 
Here arises a question as to the restrictions on the per¬ 
sons who were to eat. It is expressly declared that a 
stranger who just happened to be staying there could 
not eat of it, but a slave that belonged to the family could 
partake of it. No foreigner could partake of it, nor 
could a hired servant; and an uncircumcised man was 
imperiously ordered not to partake of it, and a fearful 
penalty was attached to it. When that little family was 
gathered and this lamb was roasted, it was to be eaten by 


92 


EXODUS 


[xii-xiii 

the whole family, but in eating it no bone was to be 
broken; and when they got through only the skeleton 
remained. They were to eat it with unleavened bread 
and bitter herbs. So far as the Egyptian Passover is con¬ 
cerned, nothing is said of wine, but in Christ’s time we 
see wine used. That first Passover, though, was in 
great haste. 

Notice how they were to eat, viz.: with sandals on 
their feet. The sandals were taken off while in the 
house, but here they were to have them on since they 
were ready for starting, with a long robe girt around 
them and staff in hand. They were to go right from 
the feast on the march and they were to eat in a hurry. 
The bitter herbs signified the affliction from which they 
were escaping. A kind of sauce was made from these 
herbs. In the New Testament when Christ was eating 
the Passover it says that He dipped His sop into the dish. 
That is the sauce. The unleavened bread referred to 
purity, leaven means corruption. As Paul explains when 
he discusses the matter in I Corinthians, “ the unleavened 
bread of sincerity and truth.” Notice that a part of 
this institution referred to a later time as set forth in 
these two chapters, because this feast was to be both 
a memorial and a sign, and as a memorial it was to be per¬ 
petuated. They were to observe it throughout all gen¬ 
erations. The feast as provided on this occasion was to 
last seven days, from the fourteenth to the twenty-first. 
The first day, or the fourteenth, was devoted to searching 
the house that there should be no leaven found in the 
house. 

It was a curious sight to watch the Jews prepare that 
way for the feast. The furniture was moved out, a 
lamp was lighted, and they would go around, holding it 
up to shine into all the cracks of the house; they would 


93 


xii-xiii] INSTITUTION OF PASSOVER 

look into all the vessels to see if just a speck of leaven, 
or yeast, of any kind was in the house. To this Paul 
referred when he said, “ Purge out the old leaven, and 
let us eat the feast of unleavened bread of sincerity and 
truth.” This was to be a memorial feast because this 
night they were to be delivered from Egypt; so they 
were sacred to God. It was a sign that as a nation they 
were being delivered from the power of Egypt for¬ 
ever. In connection with the Passover, therefore, is the 
sanctification of the firstborn, the firstborn male of man 
or animal was to be God’s. If it was an unclean animal, it 
was still to be God’s, but it was to be redeemed with 
money and the money was to go into the treasury of 
God. The sanctification of the firstborn must always 
be considered in connection with the Passover. 

Another thing to be considered in connection with it 
was the agricultural feature. Not much reference is 
made to that here, but in the later books of the Penta¬ 
teuch we come to it. It was a day in which certain 
offerings were to be made, particularly of the firstfruits. 
There was a special offering for each day of the seven 
days in which that feast was kept. So you must keep 
distinct in your mind the Passover as a sacrifice, the 
Passover as a feast, as a memorial, as a sign, the Pass- 
over in connection with the sanctification of the first¬ 
born, and in relation to the agricultural features of it. 

Another important thing: It was accompanied with 
instructions, xii, 26: “And it shall come to pass, when 
your children shall say unto you, What mean ye by this 
service? that ye shall say, It is the sacrifice of Jehovah’s 
passover, who passed over the houses of the children of 
Israel in Egypt, when he smote the Egyptians, and de¬ 
livered our houses.” The second part of the instruc¬ 
tion is in xiii, 14, where the firstborn comes in: “ When 


94 


EXODUS 


[xii-xiii 

thy son asketh, What is this ? Why do ye set yourselves 
apart the firstborn on this occasion ? your answer shall be : 
By the strength of his hand Jehovah brought us out of 
Egypt from the house of bondage, and it came to pass 
when Pharaoh would hardly let us go, Jehovah slew his 
firstborn; therefore I sacrifice to Jehovah all that openeth 
the womb, being males; but all of the firstborn of my 
sons I redeem/’ The firstborn was to be priest of the 
family, but when the nation was organized at Sinai, they 
took one of the twelve tribes and consecrated the entire 
tribe to the priesthood. The firstborn of each family 
was thus, as it were, redeemed. When you are asked 
why the tribe of Levi belonged to God, your answer will 
be, because it took the place of the firstborn in each 
family. The tribe of Levi is not to own any land but to 
be sustained by the Lord’s house and the Lord’s people. 

Notice, next, that the Passover was to be kept by 
faith. In Hebrews xi we have this language: “ By faith 
Moses kept the passover, and the sprinkling of the 
blood, that the destroyer of the firstborn should not touch 
them.” When they slew that lamb and sprinkled his 
blood on the doorposts they were constantly to rely in 
their hearts on that blood to protect them. It was an 
act of faith in the blood. 

The first time I ever witnessed the observance of the 
Lord’s Supper I was a little boy, and I noticed that some 
of the bread was left over. A little negro was with me, 
and he said, “ Let’s ask them for them scraps.” I says, 
“ Maybe they won’t let us have them.” So when the 
deacons passed out (after the congregation was dis¬ 
missed) with that plate of scraps the little negro comes 
up and says, “ Massah, give urn to me,” and the deacon 
said, “ No, you can’t have them.” “ Well, what are you 
going to do with them ? ” asked the negro. “ Going to 


xii-xiii] INSTITUTION OF PASSOVER 95 

burn them up,” replied the deacon. It made a deep im¬ 
pression on my mind. That which was left over had to 
be destroyed, and they get that idea from the Passover. 
If they were unable to eat all of the lamb they must burn 
it that very night. It stood in a peculiar relation as no 
other food ever did, and was not to be used for secular 
purposes of any kind. 

Another restriction was this : Suppose that there was 
a family gathered in a house that night. Maybe in the 
next house were some people who were not strictly en¬ 
titled to come in and sit with that family. Now, could 
they take any of that lamb out of the house and give it to 
anybody out of the house? The law is very explicit. 
“ You shall not take it out of the house.” 

When a Baptist preacher, pastor of the First Church 
at Houston, Texas, allowed himself to be overpersuaded 
through his sympathetic good nature to go and adminis¬ 
ter the communion to a dying person, I told him that he 
had committed a great sin. He asked, “Why?” I re¬ 
plied: “You have violated every law of God that 

touches the Lord’s Supper, as you look at the analogy of 
the Passover and also the teaching of the Lord’s Sup¬ 
per. You took the Lord’s bread out of the Lord’s house. 
You gave it to an individual who was not entitled to it. 
It was not eaten in a congregation and did not express 
the unity of a congregation. You gave it to an unbap¬ 
tized man; you gave it superstitiously, and anything 
given thus is not given according to the law. Whenever 
you let people cause you to do this you rob God. If it 
was your own and you had complete control of it you 
could give it to them. But it was not yours. You had 
no more right to carry off that bread than you had to 
rob a bank.” 


96 


EXODUS 


[xii-xiii 

You see the bearing of that question upon communion. 
There can be no such thing as the individual observance 
of the Lord’s Supper; the unity-idea is expressed through¬ 
out. One Lord, not a broken bone, no severance of its 
parts, none of it to be sent out of the house. A joint 
feast for everybody in the crowd, and the crowd speci¬ 
fied, a fence put up, no stranger, no foreigner, no un¬ 
circumcised man. So when you come to the Lord’s Sup¬ 
per no unbaptized man should be there. To me it is a sign 
of incredible weakness that a man, through a little senti¬ 
mentality, should be ashamed to observe the Lord’s Sup¬ 
per in the way God demanded it to be observed, and to me 
it is a sign of great presumption that one should think that 
he has a right to specify who should come to God’s table. 
We can be generous with anything that is ours, but when 
rwe come to God’s ordinance we are not authorized in 
varying a hair’s breadth. 

When we come to study the history of the Passover, 
certain Passover observances loom up. First, this one; 
then the one described in Numbers where it was kept in 
the wilderness; one in the Holy Land at Gilgal; the one 
that Hezekiah observed; the one that Joshua observed; 
and then the last Passover of our Lord, when its great 
antitype came. Remember these historic Passovers. 

I have one thought more. An ordinance shows forth 
something. When it is properly observed it is always a 
very striking thing, and intended to attract attention; 
to evoke questions, particularly upon the part of young 
people. Take a group of children of any tribe on earth, 
white, black, red or brown, and let them see a Lord’s 
Supper or a baptism for the first time, and the question 
will pop out of their mouths, “ Why? What do you 
mean?” A little fellow running around the lot, seeing 
the father looking over the sheep, would say, “Here, 


97 


xii-xiii] INSTITUTION OF PASSOVER 

papa, take this one. Here’s a big one.” “ No, not 
that, son, I want a lamb; not that one, either; I want a 
little lamb.” The child gets a little one. “ No, not that 
one, but one without blemishes.” The father gets up 
before day and kills the lamb at a certain time of the 
day, roasting it in a certain way, and burning what is 
left. All that is intended to fix upon their minds the 
fact that they were a redeemed people, peculiar to God. 
What is peculiar cannot belong to another. 

The reader should look out every passage in Leviticus, 
Numbers and Deuteronomy which touches the Pass- 
over. And I want to commend a book by Joseph Frey, 
a converted Jew who devoted his life to proving from 
the Old Testament that Jesus was the Christ. Read Frey 
on “ The Types of the Old Testament,” especially the 
chapter on the Passover. 

EXAMINATION QUESTIONS 

1. Where do we find the original account of the institution 
of the Passover? 

2. What great event its occasion? 

3. What is the ground of the difference between the Egyp¬ 
tians and the Israelites? 

4. What claim of Jehovah did this sparing, on the one 
hand, and slaying on the other, vindicate? 

5. What the central text? 

6. What the New Testament analogue? 

7. What the design? 

8 . What the time? 

9. How did this affect the Jewish calendar? 

10. What applications of the word “Passover”? 

11. What the qualifications of the lamb? 

12. What the place? 

13. Who slays the lamb? 

14. How the blood applied? 

15. Unity of observing the feast? 

16. How prepared? 

17. How eaten? 

18. Who eats it? 


98 


EXODUS 


[xii-xiii 


19. How often? 

20. What special provision for those who cannot observe it 
at the proper time because away or ceremonially unclean? 

21. What the penalty for non-observance? 

22. A token of what was the sprinkled blood? 

23. State a number of historical observances of the Passover. 

24. What New Testament scriptures evidently bring out this 
analogy ? 

25. Give and illustrate the important lesson set forth in the 
chapter, in commenting on Exodus xii, 46. 

26. We have seen circumcision made a prerequisite to par¬ 
ticipation in the Passover Feast. Is there a similar relation 
between the analogous New Testament ordinances—Baptism 
and the Lord’s Supper? 

27. Circumcision foreshadows what? 

28. The Passover Sacrifice, what? 

29. The Passover Feast, what? 

30. The feast of unleavened bread, what? 

31. What the signification of the burning up of the remains 
of the Passover Feast? 


IX 


THE MARCH OUT OF EGYPT, THE PASSAGE 
OF THE RED SEA AND THE TRIUMPHAL 
SONG 

Exodus XIV , /— XV, 2i 

B EFORE taking up the regular discussion I will 
answer a question presented concerning the Pass- 
over Supper in connection with the Lord’s Sup¬ 
per, as follows: “ Was the footwashing supper at Beth¬ 
any or at Jerusalem?” That Passover Supper, where 
the footwashing was, occurred at the same place that the 
supper did; and if you put that footwashing at Bethany 
you must put the Lord’s Supper there, because Christ 
took the material of the Passover Supper with which 
to institute the Lord’s Supper. They had just observed 
the Passover. Now when He got through that Old 
Testament feast He instituted the analogue-ordinance, 
and used the unleavened bread of the Passover Supper 
and the wine that was used with the Passover Supper. 
All the elements were the same when He instituted the 
new ordinance for His church. 

This chapter I will give catechetically. 
i. What about the guide on this march? That is, 
what about the Pillar of Cloud by day and Fire by night? 

Ans.—When these people started from one country to 
another in fulfilment of God’s promise, viz.: “ I will go 

99 



100 EXODUS [xiv-xv 

with you; my Presence shall go with you,” that Pillar 
of Cloud by day and of Fire by night, was first seen when 
they started that night; the night the firstborn was slain 
there appeared a great fire column; its position was just 
over Moses, the place it occupied until the tabernacle was 
built, which we will see in subsequent discussions. The 
natural position of that Cloud by day, and the Fire by 
night, was over the tabernacle. When they were moving, 
if that Cloud stopped, everybody stopped. The next day, 
or if that Cloud moved off in an hour, it meant to get 
ready to start, and then it would move forward, they 
moving after it. In the night time this Cloud was a 
great column of brilliant light, brighter than any electric 
light now to be seen in any great city, and all night long 
the radiance from that Cloud brightly illuminated the en¬ 
tire camp; so that no night ever touched them in the 
forty years. As soon as day came and the sun rose, then 
that fire became a Cloud, and it spread over them and 
kept between them and the sun, giving them a shade all 
day long; so that the sun never touched them in all that 
time. If an enemy was pursuing them that Cloud moved 
around and got in the rear and turned a hot, fiery face, if 
it was night, to the adversary, very horrible; or it turned 
a dark face impenetrable in its blackness, and to the 
children of Israel brightness, the same face shining on 
God’s people, and frowning on His enemies. We see the 
last of this Pillar when they get over into the Promised 
Land, i.e., you think you do. But that Cloud becomes the 
Shekinah on the Ark of the Covenant and goes clear on 
to the building of Solomon’s temple. Then it leaves the 
tabernacle and goes to the temple; and when the temple 
falls that Cloud becomes the Holy Spirit, descended into 
the new Temple, the Church. The same thought runs 
all the way through the Bible, symbolizing the advocat- 


xiv-xv] THE MARCH OUT OF EGYPT ,101 

ing presence of God to guide and guard and to cherish 
His people. 

2. How many went out of Egypt and who? 

Ans.—The record states there were 600,000. The 
women and children are not enumerated, but on that 
basis it is easy to determine that there were between two 
and three millions of people in all. There went with 
them a mixed multitude of people who had not been 
circumcised, following the fortunes of the Jews, and get¬ 
ting into much trouble later. 

3. Where was the starting point of this march? 

Ans.—On the map we shall see it to be Rameses. They 

were all over this land of Goshen; but they came to¬ 
gether at Rameses as a rallying point for a start, the place 
which they built when they were slaves. And from this 
starting point there were three ways into the Holy 
Land. 

4. What are the three ways to the Holy Land and why 
did they not go the first? Why not continue on the 
second, having started on it ? Why the third ? 

Ans.—There are three ways: the first is nearest the 
coast line through the Philistine country, a straight way, 
the nearest of all the ways; that way is there now. Why 
did they not go that way ? God says that the Philistines 
are a formidable people, and trained to war; and if He 
took the Israelites that way they would get there before 
they were ready to meet such adversaries as the Philis¬ 
tines. That is why. The second way is the middle one 
of the three, going straight through the desert. Now 
why, having started that way, did they stop ? Here is an 
important piece of history in the war between the Egyp¬ 
tians and the Hittites. The Egyptians had built a high 
wall following the line now occupied by the Suez Canal 
from the most northern point of the Red Sea and it had 


102 


EXODUS 


[xiv-xv 

towers on it every few hundred yards filled with armed 
men. Why could not God have blown up that wall, and 
given them an easy passage through it? He could have 
done it, but that would not have allowed Him to deal with 
Pharaoh as He wanted to; so they make a turn and come 
out the long way, coming to the most northern point of 
the Red Sea. They came to the end of the wall, not 
crossing it at all, but going across the tongue of the sea. 
Then they came down to the Sinaitic Peninsula, and 
along round by the way where there was nothing to ob¬ 
struct. Now why was that way selected? In the first 
place, God said to Moses when He met him at the burning 
bush, “ The token that I have given you that you will 
deliver these people is, that you will bring them to this 
mountain, and here worship God.” He wanted to take 
them a way sufficiently long for Him to educate them for 
what He wanted them to do when they entered the Holy 
Land. Apparently He wanted to get them down there into 
this imperishable Sinaitic Peninsula, and there enter into 
a national covenant with them, giving them the moral law, 
the civil law and the law of the altar, or the way of ap¬ 
proach to God. He kept them there a year learning that 
lesson, and that is why He took the lower, more distant 
and most difficult road. 

5. What the hazard of the encampment by the sea in 
which He led them? 

Ans.—When He brought them down there they could 
not get out that way for the wall; then a mountain was 
on either side of them, and they could not go forward 
because of the sea; nor backward because Pharaoh was 
coming behind closing up that way, a regular culvert; 
He wanted to get them in that corner where, humanly 
speaking, they could not dig under a channel, and get out 
of the culvert; they could not go forward; they could not 


103 


xiv-xv] THE MARCH OUT OF EGYPT 

climb the mountains on the right and left, nor could they 
go back because of Pharaoh's armed chariots in hot 
pursuit. That was the hazard of the situation. God 
wanted to teach them that important lesson. 

6. Explain the “ stand still ” of Moses and the “ go 
forward ” of God. 

Ans.—When the Israelites saw the situation they were 
frightened, perplexed inside and outside, and they whim¬ 
pered like a whipped dog howling, or a whipped man 
cursing: “ Why could you not let us abide over yonder 
in Egypt ? ” Moses says, “ Stand still and see the salva¬ 
tion of God." The thought of Moses is, “ You have 
arrived at a position where there is nothing you can do, 
humanly speaking; and that Cloud is not moving; and 
God, having brought you here, is going to save you. So 
don’t get scared; keep a stiff upper lip; stand still and 
have faith in the deliverance of God; He will get you 
out." They felt a good deal like the fellows I saw 
during the Civil War the first time I was ever detailed by 
my company, lying down upon a battery, fighting four 
batteries. We were just right there on the ground. They 
would not let us shout nor shoot, nor stand up; and the 
shells from the enemy came whizzing round, the battery 
popping off all around us, every now and then taking a 
fellow’s head off; and there we had to lie still. Now take 
the case of the Lord, “ Say unto the people that they 
go forward." And they beheld that Pillar of Cloud be¬ 
ginning to move. You stand still in a matter where you 
cannot do anything, but if there is anything you can do, 
do not stand still, but go forward. Now God is going to 
test their faith. Right in front of them is that sea, from 
one to three miles wide. “ Go forward, forward, for¬ 
ward!” “Well, do you mean for us to just step off 
into that sea?" “Forward!" Directly Moses lifted 


104 


EXODUS 


[xiv-xv 

his rod up, the staff of authority, and as he did it there 
came a mighty wind like a wedge and split that sea wide 
open, clear to the centre. They did not have to step into 
the sea; they lifted their feet up at the edge of the sea, 
and when they were ready to put them down it was dry. 
The wind had split the sea open and they got on the 
other side. 

When I was a boy my father preached a sermon on 
“ Stand still and see the salvation of the Lord,” show¬ 
ing also that when the Lord says “ Go forward,” you 
are to go forward. There was a negro boy who could 
imitate to perfection my father’s preaching, especially as 
to voice. Standing on a box, he reproduced that sermon 
of my father’s, giving all the points, gestures and intona¬ 
tions of voice. It beat anything I ever heard. Of course 
it very much impressed that sermon on my mind. 

7. What the natural explanation of this deliverance, 
and why not sufficient? 

Ans.—The natural explanation is that there was no 
miracle; that about this time the wind came and cleared 
away that water. History tells us about the Rhine being 
cleared away once by the power of the wind, just as the 
ebb of the tide will leave a strand almost dry, and the 
flux of the tide will put the feet in the middle. But why 
is that not sufficient explanation ? In the first place, what 
was done took place at the hand of Moses; and in the 
second place, in the song of deliverance that immediately 
followed the passage through the Red Sea are these 
words: “ The waters stood up in heaps and congealed.” 
What does congeal mean? To freeze. I never saw a 
wind do that. There was an ice wall, perpendicular on 
each side, not that it was natural ice, but it stood as 
firm in that perpendicular position as if it had been 
frozen. The power of the Lord held it there, as smooth- 


105 


xiv-xv] THE MARCH OUT OF EGYPT 

faced as a mirror. Then, in the third place, it certainly 
was a remarkable coincidence that the wind should come 
just exactly at that time and by bringing those waters 
together again swallow up those that came after them. 
You must not depend much on their explanation; but take 
the coincidence, as the good boy said about his father 
finding cow bells. He said that his papa had brought 
home a cow bell that he had “ found ” and his mamma was 
glad that he found it because the cow needed a bell, and 
the next day he found another cow bell and his mamma 
was glad because they needed that cow bell; but the next 
day he found one for the calf, and the third day his 
mamma and he suspected where those cow bells came 
from. Things do not happen just that way. You don’t 
find three bells in succession. And when he found the 
third one something, they knew, was up. 

8. What question of historical criticism comes up here? 

Ans.—Here are two or three millions of people leaving 

Egypt, one of the most prominent nations of the world, 
passing with their hordes of women and children through 
a point of the sea, migrating to another country. Is that 
history? That is the historical criticism. My answer is 
that this was just as much a historical transaction as the 
fact that you were born; it is true history. 

9. What the proofs that this incident was history? 

Ans.—The proofs are remarkable: (1) It was cele¬ 
brated immediately afterwards, and that memorial is pre¬ 
served for all generations. We have it yet. Just as I 
would prove that something occurred at Bunker Hill; 
there stands a monument which tells on the very face of 
it in commemorative power that that incident took place. 

(2) The next argument is the permanent impression 
it made on subsequent Hebrew literature. Looking at the 
nearby literature of that people, the references that you 


106 


EXODUS 


[xiv-xv 

see in the book of Numbers and in Deuteronomy are still 
fresh and are living witnesses. Then turn to the great 
hymn book of the nation, the poetry of the nation (every 
reader ought to do it), and read the portions of Psalms 
lxvi, lxx, lxxiv, lxxvii, cvi, cxiv that refer to this incident. 
Is there on earth a poetry of a nation in such remarkable 
measure as these, and even of such a nature, if there 
were no history? Then turn to the pages of Habakkuk 
and Zechariah, where you find it mentioned in days 
long afterwards; and turn to the New Testament and 
here it is discussed, as in I Corinthians x and Revelation 
xix. So that at least fifteen hundred years after the event 
the literature of that nation is thrilling with it. 

(3) Then consider this remarkable fact with the fact 
that the Egyptians in their monuments and in their hiero¬ 
glyphics are profuse in telling of the glorious deeds of 
one king and another king, but they are silent about the 
triumphs of this one. Why is it that the preceding reigns 
of the Egyptian kings who had ended well are chronicled, 
as also the succeeding reigns, and they are silent concern¬ 
ing this king? Egypt lies helpless for many years after 
this event; its power was smitten. The historians did 
not like to tell about what caused it. They furnished 
corresponding facts. 

10. Where in the New Testament is this passage 
through the Red Sea called a baptism? Explain it. 

Ans.—I Corinthians x says, “ I would not, brethren, 
have you ignorant that our fathers were all under the 
cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all bap¬ 
tized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea.” Our 
fathers were baptized “ eis” Moses. In our chapter in 
the New Testament we will learn about the “ baptizo” 
plus “eis ”—unto Moses. We will now explain how that 
was a baptism. In this way it was a baptism: On the 


107 


xiv-xv] THE MARCH OUT OF EGYPT 

right hand a perpendicular wall of water stood; on the 
left hand also was a perpendicular wall of water; and 
between it was like a grave, and the Cloud spread itself 
over the grave like the lid to a coffin, only that Cloud-lid 
was as bright as the brightest day that earth ever knew. 
This Cloud and the two walls of the sea entirely encom¬ 
passed the children of Israel. There in that grave they 
were buried in baptism, with the light of the Pillar of 
Cloud above them. The light would reflect the mirrored 
face of the icy water; and the wall on the left flashed 
back in its reflection, striking the icy wall on the right, 
which in turn flashed back its reflection to the other side 
—mirrored across; mirrored in light. All about them 
was stark darkness, but they were safe in the light. It 
was a baptism in light. 

ii. What did a Methodist preacher have to say about 
the explanation of it? 

Ans.—He quotes Psalm lxxvii, 16-17, concerning this 
passage through the Red Sea, thus: 

“ The waters saw thee, O God; 

The waters saw thee, they were afraid: 

The depths also trembled. 

The clouds poured out waters; 

The skies sent out a sound; 

Thine arrows also went abroad.” 

He says that the clouds poured out water, and in the rain 
from that cloud they were baptized. I debated with him 
one day, and said to him, “ That passage in I Corinthians 
says they were baptized, not in clouds, but in a par¬ 
ticular cloud.” I then asked if that particular cloud was 
a rain cloud. Did it ever rain anything? I said, “You 
have the cart before the horse. After they got through 


108 


EXODUS 


[xiv-xv 

the cloud did pour out rain and there was nothing like it, 
but it fell on the Egyptians and not on the Israelites; they 
never got a drop of water on them. It was a figurative 
baptism. Cloud above them, cloud around them, they 
were buried in a cloud of light.” 

12. Was Pharaoh himself destroyed in the Red Sea? 

Ans.—The record seems to make it so. Historians 

say that he himself did not go down into the sea. But 
Egyptian historians would naturally hide that account of 
the death of their great king. 

13. How was this event celebrated? 

Ans.—Moses wrote a song, a grand one, a song of 
deliverance. Talk about singing! That was an antiph- 
onal, voice against voice, a responsive song; the choir 
or a man would sing one line and the rest of the congre¬ 
gation or the women with timbrels would sing the 
chorus; the men their part, and the women handing it 
back in the form of a chorus, accompanied with instru¬ 
mental music. 

14. What effect on Egypt for many years? 

Ans.—It caused her to lie dormant for a long time. 

15. —What effect on the Canaanites? 

Ans.—It filled them with fear. 

16. What effect on Israel? 

Ans.—It strengthened their faith in God. 

17. Give and explain the last New Testament refer¬ 
ence. 

Ans.—The last historical reference in connection with 
this passage is the passage in Revelation referring to this 
baptism. The redeemed host in heaven are represented 
as standing on a sea of glass mingled with fire, the glass 
reflecting the fire; as if you were to put a mirror here 
and another yonder, and you had a light between them. 
So this second type is the final redemption of God’s peo- 


109 


xiv-xv] THE MARCH OUT OF EGYPT 

pie in their emergence on the resurrection day. From 
the burial of death they come triumphantly and stand 
between the shores of heaven and look back on what is, as 
it were, a sea of glass, mingled with fire; that is, the 
light of Redemption is shining into all of the graves 
from which they have emerged, and they are saved for¬ 
ever. 


X 


FROM THE RED SEA TO SINAI 
Exodus XV, 22 — XVI, 36 
(Cate chetic ally ) 

W HAT notes of time and how long the period? 

Ans.—Exodus xii, 6, 51, shows that they 
started from Egypt on the fifteenth of the first 
month. Exodus xv, 22, the beginning of our lesson, 
shows that they go three days in the wilderness. Exodus 
xvi, 1, shows that they enter into the wilderness of Sin in 
the second month, and Exodus xix, 1, shows that they ar¬ 
rived at Sinai in the third month. So that the period 
covered by this lesson was about two months. 

2. What scripture gives all the camping stations? 

Ans.—Numbers xxxiii, 8-15. 

3. Explain methods of travel and stops, giving average 
distance per day including stops. 

Ans.—(a) As the multitude was very great and in¬ 
cluded women and children, and as they were accom¬ 
panied by flocks and herds that must be grazed, they 
necessarily moved slowly. Even large armies, however 
well disciplined, move slowly. How much more such a 
multitude of untrained women and children as were here, 
(b) They did not travel every day, sometimes remaining 
quite a while at a convenient stopping place. While the 

110 


Ill 


xv-xvi] FROM RED SEA TO SINAI 

Cloud stood still they stayed, (c) They averaged on this 
part of the journey about a mile a day including stops. 

4. What the starting point, what wildernesses men¬ 
tioned and what the stopping places ? 

Ans.—The starting point was the Red Sea; the wil¬ 
dernesses mentioned are the wilderness of Etham, the 
wilderness of Sin and the wilderness of Sinai; and 
the stopping places are Marah, Elim, etc. (See Num¬ 
bers xxxiii, 8-15.) 

5. What the great events of this journey? 

Ans.—(1) The healing of the bitter water at Marah; 
(2) The good times at the many waters of Elim; (3) The 
coming of the manna and quail; (4) The Sabbath marked 
and observed; (5) Water from the smitten rock at Rephi- 
dim; (6) The deliverance in battle at Rephidim. 

6. What the great lessons of these events ? 

Ans.—(1) The checkered vicissitudes of an earthly 
pilgrimage; (2) God’s safe guidance of His people— 
“ Where He leads we will follow ”; (3) God’s provision 
of competent human leaders; (4) God’s provision against 
sickness, thirst, hunger, nakedness, heat and darkness; 
(5) God’s provision for regular worship; (6) The Lord 
is the banner of His people in battle; (7) The sin of mur¬ 
muring when under God’s leadership; (8) All together 
His marvellous methods of training a nation by proving 
and discipline and healing and delivering. 

7. What the three instances of provision against 
thirst? 

Ans.—When the water was bad, when it was good and 
abundant, and when there was no water. 

8. State the lesson of Marah? 

Ans.—(1) They were brought to this bad water to 
prove them, to afford them an opportunity of trusting 
God under difficult conditions. (2) It is distinctly a les- 


112 


EXODUS 


[xv-xvi 

son of healing. Whatever the way, the water was dis¬ 
eased, poisoned by some unwholesome ingredient. It is 
quite possible that this poison came from stagnation. A 
flowing stream disposes of its poison. In the forty-sev¬ 
enth chapter of Ezekiel, where we have an account of the 
marvellous water of life flowing from the sanctuary, it 
is stated in the paragraph, verses 7 to 11, that where the 
water flowed into a depression whence there was no outlet 
it became a salt marsh. As water must flow to be health¬ 
ful, so a Christian must move forward or backslide. (3) 
The purpose of the miracle of healing the water was to 
suggest that God is able to prevent or to cure all the 
diseases of His people. (4) Therefore this healing was 
made the occasion of a statute requiring obedience as a 
condition of the divine blessing upon the pilgrims, fol¬ 
lowed by a glorious promise that He would put upon them 
none of the diseases to which the Egyptians were subject. 
(5) It is quite probable that the spiritualizing interpre¬ 
ters are right in seeing in the tree used as an instrument 
of healing a foreshadowing of the cross of Christ. It is 
certain that the way of life necessarily finds some hard 
places, leads to some painful experiences and afflictions. 
Indeed this is necessary to discipline, and this whole 
lesson teaches that when we come to these afflictions or 
other trials that may be bitter, the cross will sweeten them 
so as to make them bearable, converting the bitter into 
sweet. A splendid commentary on the lesson is J. G. 
Holland’s great poem “ Bittersweet.” If you have 
not read it, read it, and there learn the lesson of 
Marah. 

9. What is the lesson of Elim? 

Ans,—As Marah shows that life’s pilgrimage must 
come to some hard places, Elim shows that there are 
alternations of most pleasant places. Here were twelve 


113 


xv-xvi] FROM RED SEA TO SINAI 

flowing springs and abundant pasturage, and the palm 
tree for shade. The providence of God does not lead us 
always to climbing hills and to sufferings from sickness. 
It brings us now and then to Beulah lands. It is quite 
probable that they remained at Elim several days until , 
man and beast were refreshed. Cf. Job in his reflections. 

io. What the great lessons of the manna? 

Ans.—(i) From pleasant Elim they go into the hor¬ 
rible desert of Sin and now, their supplies brought from 
Egypt having been consumed, the people are suffering 
from the keenest pangs of hunger. The bread and meat 
question in all human history has been one to try the 
souls of the people. What shall we eat and what shall 
we drink ? is the fruitful source of needless anxiety, as we 
learn from the Sermon on the Mount. If the high cost of 
living at the present time oppresses the poor and puts 
them on the danger line of desperate deeds, how sore 
must have been this trial to these people in this dreadful 
wilderness when there was no food at all! It was a time 
for great faith in God. They were not equal, however, 
to the occasion. (2) They not only murmured against 
the earthly leaders whom God had appointed, but they 
looked back longingly to the fleshpots of Egypt. They 
preferred abundant food in Egypt with slavery to hunger 
in the wilderness with liberty. How Patrick Henry’s 
voice would have sounded there: “ Is life so dear or 

peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains 
and slavery?” (3) Jehovah now announces that He will 
rain bread from heaven but in such a way as that their 
dependence on Him shall be day by day, and that He is 
able to set a table before them in the wilderness, not 
only by supplying bread in the morning but causing the 
quail by the thousands to light in the camp in the 
evenings. 


114 * EXODUS [xv-xvi 

11. Describe the coming of the manna, its appearance 
and taste. 

Ans.—(i) It came as dew. (2) It looked like corian¬ 
der seed. (3) It tasted like honey and wafers. 

12. What was the occasion of its name? 

Ans.—When the people looked upon something like 
hoarfrost on the ground and were informed that this was 
their bread from heaven, all over the camps the question 
spontaneously came: “ What is it ? ” What a fine text 
for a sermon. “What is it?” That is the meaning of 
manna. They saw the bread thus spread on the ground, 
and said, “ Manna! ” meaning, “ What is it? ” 

13. What was the law of its coming so as to mark the 
Sabbath ? 

Ans.—On the Sabbath day no manna fell; it was God’s 
calendar. If the people in the monotony of their life 
should forget, once every week when they looked out and 
found the ground bare, that said, “ To-day is the Holy 
Sabbath of the Lord.” For many long years the absence 
of manna on the seventh day served the purpose of a 
church bell. 

14. What the Law of When and Hove much to gather? 

Ans.—It was to be gathered every morning that it ap¬ 
peared. A definite quantity must be gathered for each 
one, just a sufficiency. On every Friday they must gather 
twice as much as on the other secular days of the week, 
because none would come on the Sabbath day. This 
remarkable supply and its method taught the lesson later 
inculcated in the Lord’s Prayer, “ Give us this day our 
daily bread,” or “ Give us our bread day by day.” It also 
calls up that remarkable prayer of Agur: 

“Two things have I asked of Thee; 

Deny me them not before I die: 


115 


xv-xvi] FROM RED SEA TO SINAI 

Remove far from me falsehood and lies; 

Give me neither poverty nor riches; 

Feed me with the food that is needful for me; 

Lest I be full, and deny thee, and say, 

Who is Jehovah? 

Or lest I be poor, and steal, 

And use profanely the name of my God.” 

—Proverbs xxx, 7-9. 

15. How was disobedience of this law discoverable in 
three particulars? 

Ans.—(1) If on Friday, they forgot that the morrow 
was the Sabbath, or if remembering, they trusted to find 
enough on the Sabbath to satisfy for that day, then they 
must starve that day. Others could not supply them, for 
each one had just enough for himself. (2) If when they 
gathered it in the morning they provided more than the 
allowance, it shrank to the measure of the omer. (3) If 
doubting that it might come the next day they preserved 
a part of one day’s supply for the next day, it stank and 
bred worms. And some of the people were caught on all 
these points. 

16. What, then, the purpose of this marvellous mir¬ 
acle? 

Ans.—Its purpose was threefold: (1) To make the 
people see and feel their dependence upon God; (2) to 
make them feel this dependence day by day; (3) to mark 
in the most marvellous way the necessity of setting apart 
one-seventh of their time, not merely to freedom from 
work but to worship God and thus keep them from stray¬ 
ing too far from the Lord. 

17. What scriptures show how long this miracle 
lasted ? 

Ans.—Joshua v, 10-12, and Exodus xvi, 35, show that 


116 


EXODUS 


[xv-xvi 

at Gilgal after the Passover following the circumcision, 
they did eat of the old corn of the land and the manna 
ceased. Just forty years from the time that they had 
left Egypt. 

18. What was the memorial of the manna? 

Ans.—A pot of the manna, a day’s allowance, was laid 
up before the Lord, like Aaron’s rod that budded, and 
kept for a memorial unto all generations. 

19. Where do we find an elaborate discussion of the 
antitype of the manna? 

Ans.—The whole of the sixth chapter of John is de¬ 
voted to a discussion of this subject, and we cannot under¬ 
stand the fulness of the lesson on the manna until we 
have mastered that chapter. 

20. What further New Testament scripture refers to 
this antitypical lesson? 

Ans.—Revelation ii, 17, to the church at Pergamos, 
Jesus says, “ To him that overcometh will I give to eat of 
the hidden manna.” The hidden manna may refer to the 
preserved pot of manna kept later in the ark, or it may 
refer to its spiritual signification, that is, faith daily feed¬ 
ing on the Lord. 

21. What name does Paul give to the manna? 

Ans.—I Corinthians x, 3: “ And did all eat the same 
spiritual meat.” 

22. In what later scripture does Moses show that God 
provided at this time against nakedness as well as against 
hunger and thirst? 

Ans.—In Deuteronomy xxix, 5, 6: “ And I have led you 
forty years in the wilderness; your clothes are not waxed 
old upon you, and thy shoe is not waxed old upon thy 
foot. Ye have not eaten bread, neither have ye drunk 
wine or strong drink; that ye may know that I am Je¬ 
hovah your God.” 


117 


xv-xvi] FROM RED SEA TO SINAI 

23. In what way during this part of the pilgrimage, 
and all the rest of it, did Jehovah provide against heat 
by day and darkness by night? 

Ans.—The Pillar of Cloud spread over them as a 
shade by day, and illuminated their camps at night. 


XI 


FROM THE RED SEA TO SINAI ( Continued ) 

Exodus XVII , i—XVIII, 27 

O UR present chapter is a continuation of the last 
theme, From the Red Sea to Sinai, and this part 
of the theme is covered by Exodus seventeenth 
and eighteenth chapters. The chapter will be given 
catechetically. 

1. What was the double sin of Israel at Rephidim? 
Ans.—The chiding of Moses and the tempting of God. 

2. What was the occasion of this sin? 

Ans.—No water for the people to drink. 

3. In what words did they chide Moses? 

Ans.—“ Give us water that we may drink . . . Where¬ 
fore hast thou brought us up out of Egypt, to kill us and 
our children and our cattle with thirst? ” This chiding of 
Moses is further repeated in their being ready to stone 
him. 

4. How did they tempt God? 

Ans.—By saying, “Is the Lord among us or not?” 
That certainly ought not to have been a debatable matter. 
They should have remembered the indications of God’s 
presence with them when they were in Goshen, and the 
mighty work that He did in their deliverance, and how 
He was with them at the Red Sea and in the Pillar of 
Cloud and of Fire. His presence was visible to them 
at all times. In their perplexities He had communed with 

118 


xvn-xvm] FROM RED SEA TO SINAI 119 

them through Moses, and had just sweetened the water 
at Marah. 

5. How was the want supplied? 

Ans.—Jehovah commanded Moses to take with him 
the elders of the people and the rod, the staff, and go 
to the rock in Horeb and smite it, and water would gush 
out of it. At the striking of Moses on that rock, the 
fountain was unsealed. The first time that I ever saw 
Kickapoo Spring in Texas, I was reminded of the smit¬ 
ing of the rock. That spring comes out of the rock 
just about on a level with your face as you stand in 
front of it, and the volume of water is about one yard 
thick, just gushing out, and trout are playing in it fifteen 
steps from where it gushes from the rock. An old Indian 
tradition is that in days long past a number of the Indians 
were there starving and that there came a thunderbolt 
which smote the rock and unsealed that fountain of 
water. 

6. What names were given to these places? What 
their derivation and meaning? 

Ans.—The names given were Massah and Meribah. 
They are derived from verbs. Massah is the noun of 
the verb which means “ to tempt, or prove.” Massah, 
then, means temptation, trial or a proving, from verse 7: 
“ And he called the name of the place Massah, and 
Meribah, because of the striving of the children of Israel, 
and because they tempted Jehovah, saying, Is Jehovah 
among us or not? ” In verse 2 the verb “ to chide ” has 
for its noun Meribah, and the meaning is suggested by 
the verb “ to chide.” Meribah then means a chiding. 
“ Wherefore the people strove with Moses, and said, 
Give us water that we may drink.” (Verse 2.) 

7. How does Moses later refer to this sin? 

Ans.—Deuteronomy vi, 16: “Ye shall not tempt Je- 


120 


EXODUS 


[xvn-xvm 

hovah your God, as ye tempted him in Massah.” There 
on the borders of the Promised Land about thirty-nine 
years after this event, Moses gave them this law. 

8. How does our Lord apply these words of Moses? 

Ans.—We learn in Matthew iv and Luke iv that when 

Jesus was tempted of Satan in the wilderness, He cut 
him off by this saying: “ It is written, Thou shalt not 
tempt the Lord thy God,” quoting Moses. 

9. What does Paul say of this event at Rephidim, and 
what does he mean by the rock “ following them ” ? 
And how do the rabbis explain that “ following ” ? 

Ans.—Paul says that the fathers did all eat the same 
spiritual meat (referring to the manna), and did drink 
the same spiritual drink, i.e., the water from the smitten 
rock, and he says, “ That rock was Christ.” Now, the 
rabbis claim one of two alternate things: (1) That when 
the Israelites moved away from there that rock moved 
with them, carrying its fountain of waters, which is 
foolishness; or (2) that while the rock remained where it 
was, yet the water followed that company through their 
march; that stream which started to flow at Horeb fol¬ 
lowed them wherever they went, and that, too, is foolish¬ 
ness, for a good deal of the time they went uphill, and 
that being so, there would be no necessity later on to get 
water from another rock, as we learn in Numbers. What, 
then, does Paul mean in this: “ And all were baptized 
unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and did all eat 
the same spiritual food; and did all drink the same 
spiritual drink; for they drank of a spiritual rock that fol¬ 
lowed them; and the rock was the Christ ” (I Corinthians 
x, 2-4). The meaning is that Christ in His pre-incar- 
nate state accompanied them all through their wander¬ 
ings. 

10. Contrast this water from the rock with a later occa- 


xvii-xviii] FROM RED SEA TO SINAI 121 

sion, as given in Numbers xx, and expound the differ¬ 
ence. 

Ans.—In the occasion at Horeb God commands Moses 
to smite the rock. In the occasion at Kadesh God com¬ 
mands Moses to speak to the rock, not to smite it, but to 
speak to it. But Moses, instead of speaking to it as he 
had been commanded, smote it twice in anger. The 
benefits coming from Christ originated in His being 
smitten, and He was smitten once for all. He has to 
die but once; the sacrifice was never to be repeated, but 
after He died we get the benefits which flow from 
Christ by petition; by speaking to Him. We do not have 
to crucify Him afresh every time we need anything from 
Him. He was to be crucified but one time. But all 
through our lives we may speak to the smitten rock and 
get what we need. That is the most striking point of 
contrast. 

11. What other great event occurred at Rephidim? 

Ans.—At that point the Israelites were attacked by the 

Amalekites. 

12 . Who were the Amalekites? Their position among 
the nations? 

Ans.—We learn in Genesis that one of the descend¬ 
ants of Esau, the elder brother of Jacob, was Amalek; 
and hence many commentators make the Amalekites kins¬ 
men of the Israelites, the descendants of Esau. I am not 
at all inclined to accept that. The only thing in the world 
to support it is that Esau did have a son named Amalek, 
and that is all there is. But in the Bible reference the 
Amalekites are not reckoned as descendants of Shem. 
They are reckoned with the Amorites, Jebusites, Hittites 
and Philistines, occupying the Holy Land and those neigh¬ 
bouring to it. So I would say that the Amalekites were 
a tribe descended from Ham, and occupied territory 


m 


EXODUS 


[xvii-xvm 

assigned to them. Their principal territory at this time 
was in the Arabian desert, extending all the way from 
Sinai to the borders of the Holy Land. We get at their 
position among the nations by certain words of Balaam, 
the prophet, who, under the inspiration of God, spoke a 
word against the Amalekites, calling them " the chief of 
the nations” (Numbers xxiv, 20). 

13. Who commanded Israel’s forces in this battle? 
How many times before this is he named? Was his 
name Joshua at the time of the battle? If not, what 
was his name, and when and why did he get the name 
Joshua? 

Ans.—I am leaving it for the reader to answer. He 
commanded Israel’s forces. If his name was not Joshua 
at this time, and yet the writer calls him Joshua, what 
does that prove with reference to the time when the book 
was written? If this part of Exodus was written right at 
this time, and this man did not get the name of Joshua 
till later, and the writer calls him Joshua, there is an in¬ 
congruity; but if the writer wrote this part of Exodus 
after his name was Joshua, then you can understand how 
he gave him this name. Just like I now speak and say, 
“ When was Abraham born ? When did he enter Haran 
and the Promised Land?” Now, his name was not 
Abraham but Abram when he entered Haran. I am 
speaking of it later and mean to say that his name was 
Abram then. You may wrestle with that part of the 
question. I will not answer that for you. 

14. Explain verses 11 and 12 of this chapter: “ And it 
came to pass, when Moses held up his hand, that Israel 
prevailed; and when he let down his hand, Amalek pre¬ 
vailed. But Moses’ hands were heavy; and they took a 
stone, and put it under him, and he sat thereon; and 
Aaron and Hur stayed up his hands, the one on the one 


123 


xvii-xviii] FROM RED SEA TO SINAI 

side, and the other on the other side; and his hands 
were steady until the going down of the sun.” The prin¬ 
cipal thought is that while in the line of duty, Joshua with 
the armed members of Israel should fight his best, but 
there is praying to be done; fight and pray, like “ watch 
and pray.” So the lifting up of the hands of Moses sig¬ 
nifies the intercession to the God of battles that victory 
might be with the Israelites; that is the signification of 
it. The lifting up of the hands in the Psalms refers to 
the praying of the people at the time of the evening sacri¬ 
fice. Now, while Joshua fought, Moses prayed. Moses 
had a part to do in that battle, and if his intercession 
stopped, then the Amalekites would get the victory, 
which means that if he pitched untried Israel against 
warlike Amalek and left God out, Amalek would win 
the fight, but one plus God is a majority always. Inter¬ 
cession keeps God on the side of Israel; and while Moses 
prays, the inferior Israelites will triumph over the 
superior Amalekites. 

15. What is the thought and application of “ Aaron 
and Hur stayed up his hands ” ? Illustrate. 

Ans.—It suggests the thought of there being some¬ 
thing for everybody to do. Joshua must fight and Moses 
must continue his pleading; he is the great intercessor of 
his people, a mediator; and if weakness at last overcomes 
him, and his hands have to drop, that suggests something 
for somebody else to do. “I cannot fight like Joshua; 
I cannot plead like Moses; but I can stand by Moses 
and hold up his hands; I can keep the posture of suppli¬ 
cation continually.” You have heard of the man who 
wanted to go down into a mire and rescue some perishing 
people, and there were a great many who were compe¬ 
tent to do that. One of them volunteered, saying, “ I’ll 
go down if you will hold the rope.” He had to be let 


EXODUS 


124 > 


[xvn-xvm 


down; and our foreign missionaries use that and say, 
“ We will go to the heathen alone if you people at home 
will hold the rope. Don’t you quit praying for us. 
Don’t quit contributing; don’t let us get out of your 
mind.” There is something for everybody to do. You 
cannot do Joshua’s part, nor Moses’ part, but perhaps 
you can do the part of Aaron and Hur. You can hold 
up somebody’s hands. I heard a pastor once make this 
remark: “You have been unfaithful to me since I 
became pastor of this church.” The man said, “ No man 
living has ever heard me say a word against you, and you 
cannot prove that I did.” “ No, I cannot prove that.” 
And the man continued, “ I have always paid my part 
of your salary promptly; you cannot deny that.” “ No.” 
“ Then why do you say I have been unfaithful to you ? ” 
The pastor replied: “You have not held up my hands. 
As a deacon of this church you had something more to 
do than simply to refrain from criticising the pastor. 
You are an officer of the church, and the office of a dea¬ 
con was instituted as a help to the pastor; you don’t 
stay up my hands.” 

16. What was the memorial of this battle? 

Ans.—It is expressed in these words: “ And Jehovah 
said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in the book, 
and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua: that I will utterly 
blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven.” 
The memorial was a sentence from God to be put into the 
book, the book of the Pentateuch. Moses would keep on 
writing; here he would put in some, then again he would 
put some in the book which was to be the Bible of this 
people, and of all God’s people until the end of time. 
God said, “Write.” “Write what?” “I will blot out 
the name of Amalek from the whole earth.” That is the 
memorial. The object of the memorial was this: To 


125 


xvn-xvm] FROM RED SEA TO SINAI 

rehearse it to Joshua. You tell Joshua what you have 
written, “ So now, Joshua, you are to succeed Moses; 
after a while you are to command the armies of 
Israel. You are never to forget that the sentence is in the 
Holy Book: * Amalek must be blotted out.’ ” Like the 
voice of old Cato every time he would make a speech in 
the Roman Senate: “ Carthago delenda est,” i.e., “ Car¬ 
thage must be destroyed.” Rome was not safe unless 
Carthage perished. Now you rehearse this to Joshua, 
and let Joshua’s successors see it in this book; and their 
successors said, “ Amalek must be destroyed.” 

17. What is the meaning of “ Jehovah-nissi? ” Illus¬ 
trate. 

Ans.—Moses built an altar there and he called it 
“ Jehovah-nissi ”—“ Jehovah is my banner.” “ Nissi ” 
means banner. I once heard my father preach a sermon 
on “ Jehovah-nissi.” I was a little fellow, and I remem¬ 
ber that he wanted us to get the true meaning of that 
title: “ Jehovah our Banner.” How is the flag an en¬ 
sign ? “ In order to get the thought,” he said, “ go back 
to Moses praying.” As long as the hands of Moses were 
upheld the Israelites prevailed. What does that posture 
of Moses with outstretched hands look like? What 
does it make? A cross. The Lord is our banner; ban¬ 
ners have something on them, like the English battle-flag. 
Now you are to think of a banner with a cross inscribed 
on it. 

Constantine reminds you of this, who, when he first 
became a Christian, declared he was led to conversion by 
something he had seen in a great battle with his enemy; 
that while the battle was at its hottest, and the Roman 
army seemed about to be defeated, he saw in the clouds a 
banner on which was written the words, over an inscribed 
cross, “ In hoc signo vince,” “ by this sign conquer.” 


126 EXODUS [xvii-xviii 

Constantine always claimed that he saw that flag in the 
air. 

The first time that I ever heard of it was my father’s 
telling this incident in his sermon. Now he says, “ This 
posture [with his hands down] would not be a banner; 
this posture [arms and hands outstretched, horizontal 
with shoulders] is a banner. As long as Moses held up 
his hands, Israel prevailed; but if Moses let down his 
hands, Amalek prevailed. Therefore, who did that whip¬ 
ping? It was not Joshua and it was not Israel. When 
did the whipping take place? When Moses had his hands 
outstretched. That must have been Jehovah-nissi, Jeho¬ 
vah our Banner. In this banner we conquer” Anyhow 
I tell it to you for whatever value you are disposed to 
attach thereto. 

18. Explain the first clause of verse 16. 

Ans.—This is the last verse of the chapter. “ Moses 
built an altar, and called the name of it Jehovah-nissi; 
and he said, Jehovah hath sworn; Jehovah will have war 
with Amalek from generation to generation,” or the 
marginal reference, “ Because there is a hand against the 
throne of Jehovah ”—(Hebrews)—“ a hand is lifted up 
upon the throne of Jah.” Because the Lord hath sworn. 
The difficulty of explaining that is this: The text of the 
Hebrew does not hold that out well. The real meaning 
makes sense. The Hebrew expresses the idea of putting 
a hand on the throne. “ A hand is lifted upon the 
throne of Jah.” Now God would not swear by his throne; 
as we are told in the New Testament. Men swear by a 
greater; and because God could not swear by a greater 
than Himself, He took an oath by Himself, by all His 
authority. That is why the Authorized Version is a bad 
rendering of the Hebrew. But somebody’s hand is reach¬ 
ing up to that throne. Whose and what is it? Amalek. 


xvii-xviii] FROM RED SEA TO SINAI 127 

What is Amalek trying to reach? The throne of Je¬ 
hovah, working against the march of God’s people. That 
makes sense. Because he hath put his hand on the throne 
of Jehovah, Jehovah hath sworn that He will have war 
with him from generation to generation. That is cer¬ 
tainly a fine sense. 

19. When and where do the Amalekites next fight 
Israel ? 

Ans.—Numbers xxiii. After the people have gotten to 
Kadesh-Barnea, and the spies had returned, the people 
through fear refused to go up. Moses then announced 
their doom. That was never to be recalled. So far as 
that generation was concerned, they were doomed; they 
had rebelled and murmured, and now when God had 
brought them to the very border of the land, they refused 
to go in. He now announces the doom on this genera¬ 
tion, and this made such an impression on the people 
that they said, “We will go up.” Moses says, “You 
cannot go up because the Lord won’t let you.” “ We will 
go up anyhow said they, in their presumption. They 
went up, and met Amalek drawn up in battle array. The 
same people that had fought them just before they had 
gotten to Sinai now fights them on the other border just 
before they go to enter the Holy Land; as God was not 
with them, and nobody interceded with outstretched 
hands, Amalek prevailed and Israel was defeated. That 
is the next battle. 

20. When was the doom, pronounced by Moses, ful¬ 
filled ? 

Ans.—This war was going on, and God had it recorded 
in the Bible that Amalek was to be blotted out from the 
face of the earth. When fulfilled? I cite you to I 
Samuel xv, and if you know of anything later happening 


EXODUS 


128 


[xvii-xviii 


to these people, tell me about it. Saul, the first king of 
Israel, destroyed the Amalekites. 

21. Who was the last Amalekite known to the Bible, 
what his attitude toward Israel and what became of him ? 

Ans.—After the monarchy had perished and Daniel 
was dead, Esther was queen to the Xerxes who led his 
army into Greece. Haman, the Amalekite, a descend¬ 
ant of the Agagites, sought to destroy Mordecai the 
Jew; and he himself swung on the gallows which he had 
erected for Mordecai; so the last we see of the Amalek¬ 
ites is Haman swinging. Look at this last of them. 
Hundreds and hundreds of years, we go back to this me¬ 
morial written in the Book: “ I will blot Amalek from 
the face of the earth,” and at last the sponge is passed 
over the slate and that problem is wiped out. 

22. What momentous meeting took place at Horeb ? 

Ans.—Jethro, father-in-law to Moses, having heard of 

his glorious success in the deliverance of the people and 
that he is approaching Horeb, goes to meet him with 
Zipporah, the wife of Moses, and his two sons. You 
see when Moses and Zipporah started to go to Egypt and 
had that little discussion about circumcising the second 
child, Moses sent her back. She did not go on with him. 
All that time she was in her father’s house. When the 
father hears that Moses has reached that mountain, he 
thought Moses had better have his wife and children, and 
I agree with him. How very handsomely does he compli¬ 
ment Moses on his achievements; and they talk about 
each other’s welfare. Moses tells him all the details of 
the Israelites’ deliverance. 

23. What valuable suggestion of Jethro was made to 
Moses? 

Ans.—Jethro was there as a guest, and sat around the 
camp, noticing Moses early and late. Moses would sat 


129 


xvii-xviii] FROM RED SEA TO SINAI 

there and judge cases presented. Two women would 
come up after a dispute and ask Moses which was 
right. From all over the camp of three million people, 
every little judicial matter was brought to this man, and 
great crowds would be waiting to get audience. Old 
Jethro seems to have been a man of good common sense. 
So he says, “ This is not good; you are killing yourself 
and wearing out these people. I suggest that you ap¬ 
point a number of judges to whom all these small cases 
shall be referred. Let them decide such. But the things 
—the big things—that relate to God, let them be brought 
to you; and in that way you will live; and you will put 
some of the rest of these people to work.” It was a 
grand thought and was adopted by Moses. It was the 
commencement of the judicial system in the organization 
of the well-known justice court for small cases. We 
have a county, district, and a justice court. Little cases 
go to the latter; and if the cases require a bigger court, 
they go to the county court; and still bigger affairs that 
relate to more than one county go to the circuit court. 

24. Compare this appointing of Judges relieving Moses 
from the details of multitudinous affairs with a similar 
relief in Numbers xi, 1-17, brought about in exactly the 
same way. 

Ans.—These were not to have charge of judicial mat¬ 
ters, but tribal. So God tells Moses to appoint seventy 
men of the elders of Israel, saying, “ I will take of the 
Spirit which is upon thee, and will put it upon them; and 
they shall bear the burden of the people with thee, that 
thou bear it not thyself alone.” These elders were to 
judge the tribal cases. We have a similar circumstance 
in Acts vi, 1-6: “ Now in these days, when the number of 
the disciples was multiplying, there arose a murmuring of 
the Grecian (Hellenistic) Jews against the Hebrews, be- 


I 


130 EXODUS [xvn-xvm 

cause their widows were neglected in the daily minis¬ 
tration. And the twelve called the multitude of the dis¬ 
ciples unto them, and said, It is not fit that we should for¬ 
sake the word of God and serve tables. Look ye out 
therefore, brethren, from among you seven men of good 
report, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may 
appoint over this business. But we will continue stead¬ 
fastly in prayer, and in the ministry of the word.” 

25. Now compare this appointment of judges with the 
appointment of seventy elders in Numbers xi and with 
the appointment of deacons in Acts vi; define and illus¬ 
trate the economic principle governing the three trans¬ 
actions. 

Ans.—I will answer only in part. The economic prin¬ 
ciple is the division of labour. It is not worth while for 
a man to attend to details which anybody else can and 
will do. Never use a thirteen-inch cannon to shoot a 
humming bird. The division of labour is the answer. 
To illustrate: Dr. Howell, pastor of the First Church 
at Galveston, was one day approached by Deacon Dun¬ 
can, who said, " You are not doing well; you are doing 
too much, the whole thing, pastor, clerk, treasurer, sex¬ 
ton and Sunday School superintendent. Now you are 
wearing yourself out and there are just a lot of good peo¬ 
ple in this church lying around idle who can help the pas¬ 
tor do some of these things; and they will be better satis¬ 
fied if you give them something to do, and you will preach 
better sermons, and do better pastoral work if you don’t 
have to worry over a thousand things.” That illustrates 
the point. 


XII 


THE COVENANT AT SINAI—ITS 
GENERAL FEATURES 

Exodus XIX, i—XXIV } ii 

T HE covenant at Sinai is the central part of the 
Old Testament. There is no more important part 
than the giving of the law on Mt. Sinai, coupled 
with all of the transactions that took place while the 
Children of Israel remained there. We first discuss, in 
catechetical form, the covenant in its general features, 
i. Describe the place of the covenant. 

Ans.—The name of the place is sometimes called 
Sinai and sometimes Horeb. Moses himself calls it each 
one. Horeb is the range of mountains of which Sinai is 
the chief. So you speak truly when you say that the law 
was given at Horeb and at Sinai. But that there is a dis¬ 
tinction between the two, you have only to see that at 
Rephidim, where the rock was smitten, it was a part of 
the high range, and is called, in Exodus xvii, the rock 
in Horeb; and yet the succeeding chapters show that they 
had not yet gotten to Sinai, Exodus xvii, 6. In describing 
the place, then, the first thing is to give its name, which 
is the range of mountains called Horeb, whose chief peak 
is Sinai. The second idea of the place is that this range 
of mountains, including Sinai, is situate in Southern 
Arabia between two arms of the sea, and the triangular 
district between those two arms of the sea is called the 

131 


132 


EXODUS 


[xix-xxiv 

Sinaitic Peninsula. The third part of the answer in 
describing the place is this: The immediate place has a 
valley two and one-half miles long by one and one-half 
miles wide, perfectly level and right under Sinai. Sinai 
goes up like a precipice for a considerable distance, then 
slopes toward the peak, and overlooks a valley and a 
plain, for it is a long ways above the level of the sea. 
This valley is the only place in all that country where the 
people could be brought together in one body for such 
purposes as were transacted here. Modern research has 
made it perfectly clear that this valley right under Sinai 
is the place for the camp, and you can put three millions 
of people there, and then up the gorges on the mountain 
sides there is abundant range for their flocks and herds. 

2. What are the historical associations of this place, 
before and since? 

Ans.—It was called the Mount of God before Moses 
ever saw it, and there was a good road in these mountains 
prepared by the Egyptians in order to get to certain 
mines which they had in the mountains of Horeb. Since 
that time we associate Horeb with Elijah when he got 
scared and ran all the way from Samaria to Mt. Sinai—a 
big run; he was very badly scared; and what he was 
scared at was more terrible than a man; a woman was 
after him. He was not afraid of Ahab, but he was afraid 
of Jezebel. Now, Sinai is associated with Elijah; and I 
believe that Jesus went to Sinai, and I am sure Paul did. 
He says when he was called to preach, “ I did not go 
to Jerusalem for the people there to tell me how to preach, 
but I went into Arabia.” He stayed there three years, 
and, as I think, he came down to this place where the Law 
was given, in order to catch the spirit of the occasion of 
the giving of the Law from looking at the mountain itself, 
and there received the revelations of the new covenant 


xix-xxiv] THE COVENANT AT SINAI 133 

which was to supersede the covenant given upon Mt. 
Sinai. Long after Paul’s time the historical associations 
of Sinai are abundant. Many of the books that teach 
about the Crusades have remarkable incidents in connec¬ 
tion with the Sinaitic Peninsula, and particularly this 
mountain. If you were there to-day, you would see build¬ 
ings perpetuating Mosaic incidents, and on this mountan 
is a convent belonging to the Eastern, the Greek church, 
rather than to the Roman church; and in that convent 
Tischendorf found the famous Sinaitic manuscript of the 
New Testament, which is the oldest, the best and the 
most complete. There are associations in connection with 
Sinai which extend to the fifteenth century and even 
after. 

3. What was the time of the arrival of these people at 
this mountain? 

Ans.—The record says, “ In the third month after the 
children of Israel were gone forth out of the land of 
Egypt, the same day came they into the wilderness of 
Sinai.” In the sixteenth chapter it says: “ And they took 
their journey from Elim, and all the congregation of 
the children of Israel came unto the wilderness of Sin, 
which is between Elim and Sinai, on the fifteenth day 
of the second month after their departing out of the land 
of Egypt.” They left Egypt on the fifteenth and were in 
the wilderness of Sin on the fifteenth of the next month— 
one month’s time; but while it is only one month in time, 
it covered parts of two months. “ Now in the third 
month ”—but just where in it the record does not 
say—they reached Sinai. Another question on that 
directly. 

In discussing this subject, I shall have the following 
general heads: (1) The Preparation for the Covenant; 

(2) The Covenant itself; (3) The Stipulations of the 


134 


EXODUS 


[xix-xxiv 

Covenant; (4) The Covenant Accepted; (5) The Cove¬ 
nant Ratified; (6) The Feast of the Covenant. That will 
be the order of this chapter. 

4. What the proposition and reply? 

Ans.—In chapter xix the proposition for the cove¬ 
nant comes from God in these words: “ And Moses 

went up unto God, and Jehovah called unto him out of 
the mountain, saying, Thus shalt thou say to the house 
of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel [here’s the 
proposition] : Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyp¬ 
tians, and how I bare you on eagles’ wings, and brought 
you unto myself. Now therefore, if ye will obey my 
voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be 
mine own possession from among all peoples: For all 
the earth is mine; and ye shall be unto me a kingdom of 
priests, and a holy nation. These are the words which 
thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.” On those 
terms God proposes a covenant. Now, let us see if the 
people agree to enter into a covenant with God; “ And 
Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and 
set before them all these words which Jehovah com¬ 
manded him. And all the people answered together and 
said, All that Jehovah hath spoken we will do.” Moses 
then reported back to God what the people said. So 
here was a mutual agreement on the part of the people 
to enter into a covenant (Exodus xix, 7, 8). 

5. What the method of Jehovah’s approach in order to 
enter the covenant? 

Ans.—The theophany. “ Theophany ” means an ap¬ 
pearance of God. God says to Moses, in describing how 
He will come, that He will come in a cloud; that they 
won’t see Him; but they will see the cloud and hear His 
voice; an appearance of God, some of it visible, a cloud 
that envelops God, and His voice heard. 


xix-xxiv] THE COVENANT AT SINAI 135 

6. What the preparation for this covenant they agreed 
to enter into? 

Ans.—The first part of it was to sanctify the mountain. 
Sanctify means to set apart, or to make holy; to sanctify 
a mountain is to set it apart. That mountain which was 
to be the scene and place of this great covenant between 
God and the people was set apart, things set upon it, 
fenced about, with the prohibitions of God: “ Don’t 

you come too close to it; don’t touch it.” Just as God 
fenced the burning bush when He said to Moses, “ Don’t 
draw nigh; stop, you are close enough; take the shoes off 
your feet; this is holy ground.” The next part of the 
preparation was to sanctify the people. This was done 
ceremonially. They were ceremonially purified, as is ex¬ 
pressed in these words: “ Go down, charge the people, 
lest they break through unto Jehovah to gaze, and many 
of them perish. And let the priests also that come near 
to Jehovah, sanctify themselves, lest Jehovah break forth 
upon them.” 

7. What was to be the signal which would bring the 
people close to that mountain and put them into the 
presence of God ? 

Ans.—It was a trumpet sound, described on this occa¬ 
sion in such a way as to thrill the people hearing the 
sound. This sound was prolonged, and thus it waxed 
louder and louder and louder—a fearful, unearthly sound. 
No human lips blew that trumpet; earth never heard it 
before; the earth will hear it again only one more time, 
and that when Christ comes to judge the world; He will 
then come with the sound of a trumpet. 

8. What was to be the time when God and the people, 
after this preparation, should come together? 

Ans.—On the third day. 


136 EXODUS [xix-xxiv 

9. Describe Jehovah’s coming on the third day and 
compare Deuteronomy iv, 10-12. 

Ans.—The record says, “ And it came to pass on the 
third day, when it was morning, that there were thun¬ 
ders and lightnings, and a thick cloud upon the mount, 
and the voice of the trumpet exceeding loud; and all 
the people that were in the camp trembled. And Moses 
brought forth the people out of the camp to meet God; 
and they stood at the nether part of the mount. And Mt. 
Sinai, the whole of it, smoked, because Jehovah descended 
upon it in fire; and the smoke thereof ascended as the 
smoke of a furnace, and the whole mount quaked greatly. 
And when the voice of the trumpet waxed louder and 
louder, Moses spake, and God answered him by a voice ” 
(Exodus xix, 16-19). In Deuteronomy iv, 10-12, Moses 
describes it again, referring to that great occasion, the 
theophany, and he uses this language: “ The day that 

thou stoodest before Jehovah thy God in Horeb, when 
Jehovah said unto me, Assemble me the people, and I will 
make them hear my words, that they may learn to fear 
me all the days that they live upon the earth, and that 
they may teach their children. And ye came near and 
stood under the mountain; and the mountain burned with 
fire unto the heart of heaven, with darkness, cloud, and 
thick darkness. And Jehovah spake unto you out of the 
midst of the fire: ye heard the voice of words but ye saw 
no form; only ye heard a voice.” “ Form ” or similitude 
is a likeness; “ you heard a voice, but saw no likeness or 
similitude of God.” 

10. Who was the mediator of this covenant between 
God and the people? 

Ans.—You will notice that the people and God do not 
come together directly. In the book of Job he says, 
“ There is no daysman who shall stand between me and 


137 


xix-xxiv ] THE COVENANT AT SINAI 

God, touching God, touching me.” If God had revealed 
Himself visibly to the people and directly, the sight would 
have killed them, for they were a sinful people. In order 
to get to them, then, there was a necessity for a middle¬ 
man, a mediator; one who should approach God for the 
people and approach the people for God. Now who was 
this mediator? Moses. 

11. What part did the angels take, and how signified? 

Ans.—In the later books of the Bible we learn that this 

law was given by the disposition of angels and was sig¬ 
nified by that trumpet, the trumpet served to summon 
the whole army of God’s angels. 

12. When again will it sound, and why? 

Ans.—When the judgment day comes: “ He shall 
come with the sound of the trumpet; ” and when that 
trumpet sounds, its object is not to wake the dead, accord¬ 
ing to the negro theology, but to marshal the angels, to 
bring them back with Him. 

13. What are the great lessons of this preparation? 

Ans.—Let us get these clearly in our minds: (1) That 

this is to be a theocratic covenant. I want you to get the 
idea of this, viz.: The difference between a democratic 
covenant (made with all the people), an aristocratic 
covenant (made with the nobles, the best of the people) 
and a theocratic covenant, one in which God alone makes 
the stipulation. The people don’t prescribe anything. 
God tells everything that is to be done, either on His part 
or on their part. All the people have to do in a theo¬ 
cratic covenant is to say “ yes ” or “ no ”; to accept or 
reject. (2) That it was a mediatorial covenant; not a 
covenant directly between God and the people, but a cove¬ 
nant in which a daysman goes between, a mediator to 
transmit from God to the people, and from the people to 
God. (3) The third great lesson is that the people, in 


138 EXODUS [xix-xxiv 

order to enter into a covenant with God, even through a 
mediator, must have the following requirements: (a) 
They must make a great voluntary decision (v. 8). You 
remember when Elijah summoned all the people to meet 
him on the mountain with the prophets of Baal, and had 
the test as to who was God, and the prophets of Baal 
were to try to bring proof that they represented God, and 
he was to prove that he represented God; that he proposed 
to them that day to make a great decision: “ How long 
halt ye ? ” “ Halt ” does not mean to “ linger,” but to 

“ limp ”; a halting man in the Bible is a “ limping ” 
man. “ How long hobble ye as a limping man between 
two opinions ? If the Lord be God, follow him; if Baal 
be God, follow him” (I Kings xviii, 21-40). This is 
the lesson: That what the people must do was to make 
this great decision. Moses could not make it for them. 
They were brought up there; they had plenty of ground 
on which to stand; that valley was two and a half miles 
long and one and a half miles wide; and God could speak 
loud enough for them to hear Him, and anything they 
said He could hear. “ Now, you people, will you make 
this decision?” And they said, u We will.” (b) The 
people must have fear toward Jehovah. “ You are not 
entering into a covenant with a dumb idol, but with the 
living God.” (c) “ And you must have reverence. Don’t 
get too close to the divine presence; don’t try to 
break through that fence; don’t touch the mountain; do 
not presume to being intimate with Jehovah. You must 
have reverence.” (d) The next requirement was holi¬ 
ness; and that holiness is a sanctifying by the ceremonial 
purification. The last requirement (e) is obedience. 
“Will you obey? Will you do it?” Suppose now, to 
give you the idea perfectly, I ask again: What the great 
lessons from this preparation ? (1) Theocratic covenant; 


139 


xix-xxiv] THE COVENANT AT SINAI 

(2) Lessons of the Mediatorial Covenant; (3) What the 
people must do: decide, fear God, have reverence, be 
purified, obey God. That discusses the first part of the 
preparation for the covenant. We will now discuss, in 
general terms, the covenant itself. 

14. Give proofs that what we call the giving of the law 
on Mt. Sinai is a covenant as well as a law. 

Ans.—The evidence of its being a covenant is pre¬ 
sented by the meaning of the word “ covenant,” viz.: 
“ agreement between two, under stipulations binding 
either party.” That is a covenant; and the ratification 
takes place by the sacrifice of a victim. All the cove¬ 
nants of the Old Testament are of that kind. As a proof 
that this is a covenant, God, the party of the first part, 
makes the proposition to enter into the covenant; then 
the people agree to it; and next, God prescribes what He 
will do, and what they must do. These are the stipula¬ 
tions of the covenant. Then the people must accept for¬ 
mally after they have heard all the stipulations, and then 
comes the ratification. In Exodus xxiv, 1-8, we have an 
account of the ratification. In this chapter I shall speak 
of it more as a covenant than as a law. 

15. What its three constituent parts, binding the peo¬ 
ple? 

Ans.—Whatever mistake you make, do not make a 
mistake in answering this question. It is just as clear as 
a sunbeam that this covenant entered into on Mt. Sinai 
has three distinctive, constituent parts: (1) The moral 
law, Exodus xx, 1-17, the Ten Commandments, the first 
part of the covenant. (2) The Altar, or Law of Ap¬ 
proach to God, Exodus xx, 24-26, and xxiii, 14-19. In 
case you cannot keep the moral law, the Law of the 
Altar comes in. (3) The Civil or National Law, Exodus, 
xxi, i-xxiii, 13. Now, what are the constituent parts of 


140 


EXODUS 


[xix-xxiv 

the covenant? Moral Law, Law of the Altar, or way of 
approach to God, also the Civil or National Law. The 
civil law of judgments covers several chapters; they are 
all a part of this covenant. Now, let us separate those 
ideas: (i) Relates to the character of the person; (2) to 
the way you can approach God, if you fail in character; 
(3) to the civil or national affairs. Israel was a nation. 
This is not Abraham making a covenant; it is not Moses 
making one; it is a nation entering into a covenant with 
God, to be His treasure, His peculiar people. And I ven¬ 
ture to say that everything else in the Pentateuch, whether 
in the rest of the book of Exodus, in Leviticus, in Num¬ 
bers or in Deuteronomy, everything is developed from 
one or other of these three things. All Leviticus is de¬ 
veloped from the law of the altar; it is just simply an 
elaboration of that part of this covenant they entered into 
with God, and was enacted when they were at Sinai. All 
that part of Numbers up to the time they left Sinai (first 
ten chapters) is a development of one or another of 
these three parts. Every new enactment which comes in 
Numbers, every restatement occurring in Deuteronomy 
must be collocated there with the moral law and with the 
altar law, or with the national law. I had the pleasure at 
Brownwood, Texas, at the request of the school, the 
churches and the people there, to deliver a lecture on 
Leviticus, so as in one lecture to give those people an 
idea of the book. And the first thing I wrote on the 
blackboard was: “ Everything in the book of Leviticus 
is developed from that part of the covenant given on 
Mt. Sinai which relates to the law of the altar, or the 
way of approach to God.” 

16. In what prophecy is it shown that this covenant 
given on Mt. Sinai shall be superseded by a new covenant, 
with different terms? 


141 


xix-xxrv] THE COVENANT AT SINAI 

Ans.—Jeremiah is the prophet. You must look for it; 
the passage commences: “ In the last days, saith the 

Lord, I will make a new covenant with the house of 
Israel . . . the covenant I made with them when I 
led them out of Egypt.” Jeremiah then shows how 
different the terms of the New Covenant shall be from 
those of the covenant given at Sinai. 

17. Where in the New Testament are the terms of the 
two covenants contrasted in this form: “ Do and thou 
shalt live,” and “ Live and (thou shalt) do ”? 

Ans.—You are bound to see that there is a sharp con¬ 
trast between the new and the old covenants. If this old 
covenant says, “ Do in order to live,” and the new one 
says, “ Live in order to do,” you must be alive before you 
can do; and they then start in different directions, keep 
going away from each other, one going up, the other 
going down. Where in the New Testament is that 
thought brought out ? Look it up. 

18. Where in the New Testament is the contrast be¬ 
tween the two covenants expressed in allegory? 

Ans.—The reader may answer that. 

19. What three books of the New Testament best ex¬ 
pound the covenants as contrasted? 

Ans.—Galatians, Romans and Hebrews (in that order), 
particularly, Hebrews. And now comes a question of 
chronology. 

20. What is the support for the Jewish tradition that 
this covenant was enacted the fiftieth day after the Pass- 
over sacrifice in Exodus xii ? 

Ans.—You know the Jews always have maintained that 
the law given on Mt. Sinai was on the fiftieth day after 
the Passover was celebrated; just as in the New Testa¬ 
ment the Holy Spirit was given on the fiftieth day after 
the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. Alexander Campbell 


142 


EXODUS 


[xix-xxiv 

makes a great point of that: The giving of the new cove¬ 
nant-law must be on the fiftieth day after Christ’s cruci¬ 
fixion. You could make it a proof this way. Exodus 
xii says that this month Abib, later called Nisan, i.e., 
after the captivity it was so called, shall be the beginning 
of the year to you, and on the fifteenth day of that month 
they left Egypt, not on the first day of the month, but 
on the fifteenth, which was the beginning of the new 
year. The Passover was slain on the night of the four¬ 
teenth, and hurriedly eaten. On the fifteenth they 
marched out. Chapter xvi tells us that on the fifteenth 
day of the next month, which would be about a month 
after they left Egypt, they were then in the wilderness 
of Sin, not very far from Mt. Sinai, but only one month 
gone. Now, there are several stations at which they 
stopped before reaching Sinai, and they could be at Sinai 
and waiting three days, devoting the time to preparation, 
and make the giving of the law on the fiftieth day. 
The argument can be made out so that the time covered 
from the leaving of Rameses in Egypt to the arrival at 
Sinai would be less than two months, as fifty days does 
not equal two lunar months; there must be fifty-six days 
to get two lunar months, even. 

21. The next question bears on the stipulations of the 
covenant. Where do we find the stipulations of what 
God would do for His part? 

Ans.—What God proposes to do is expressed in the 
nineteenth chapter: “Ye shall be a peculiar treasure 
unto me, above all people, and ye shall be unto me a 
kingdom of priests, and a holy nation.” Then in chap¬ 
ter xxiii He enumerates what He will do. “ I will send 
an angel before thee, to keep thee by the way, and 
to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. 

. . Mine angel shall go before thee . . . and I 


143 


xix-xxiv] THE COVENANT AT SINAI 

will cut off the opposing nations . . . and ye shall 

serve Jehovah your God, and he will bless thy bread, and 
thy water; and I will take sickness away from the midst 
of thee ... I will drive these nations out from before 
thee. . . . And I will set thy border from the Red 

Sea even unto the sea of the Philistines, and from the 
wilderness unto the river (i.e., Euphrates).” In other 
words, He will do what He promised to Abraham He 
would do, as to their boundary. That is what He pro¬ 
poses to do. 

22. What must the people do ? 

Ans.—Keep those three parts of that covenant, having 
fear and reverence toward God, and toward His angels 
and toward Moses, the mediator. That is their part of 
the covenant. 

23. Cite the passage to prove that the people agreed 
to enter into the covenant when proposed, and cite the 
passage showing their acceptance of it when stated. 

Ans.—The covenant having been stated in all of its 
parts, God propounds to the people the plain question: 
“ Will you accept it? ” thus: “ Moses told the people all 
the words of the law,” i.e., the Decalogue, with the judg¬ 
ments or the civil law, and the law of the altar or the 
way of approach to God. And Moses wrote these words 
and said to the people, “ Will you do them? ” They said, 
“ We will.” It is very plain that after they had heard 
they accepted. And the next thing is the ratification. 

24. Describe the ratification. 

Ans.—I quote ’it: “ Moses rose up early in the 

morning, and builded an altar under the mount, and 
twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel. 
And he sent young men of the children of Israel, who 
offered burnt offerings, and sacrificed peace offerings of 
oxen unto Jehovah. And Moses took half of the blood, 


144? 


EXODUS 


[xix-xxiv 

and put it in basins; and half of the blood he sprinkled 
on the altar. And he took the book of the covenant 
[wrote those in a book; what both parties had obligated 
themselves to observe], and read in the audience of the 
people; and they said, All that Jehovah hath spoken 
will we do, and be obedient. And Moses took the blood, 
and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood 
of the covenant, which Jehovah hath made with you con¬ 
cerning all these words” (Exodus xxiv, 4-8). That 
was the ratification. 

25. What are the developments in the rest of the Pen¬ 
tateuch from each of the three parts of the covenant? 

Ans.—The reader may answer that. 

26. In what part was the gospel germ? 

Ans.—In the Altar, or Law of Approach to God. 

27. What three books specially commended? 

Ans.—Boardman’s “ Lectures on the Ten Command¬ 
ments ”; Butler’s “ Bible on the Giving of the Law at 
Sinai”; and the Presbyterian Catechism on the Ten 
Commandments. 

28. What the sign or token of the Covenant? Cite 
scripture. 

Ans.—Circumcision. Galatians v, 2. 

29. How long after the call of Abraham and the 
promise to him, was this? 

Ans.—Paul says, “ 430 years.” See Galatians iii, 17. 


XIII 


THE COVENANT AT SINAI ( Continued ) 

Scripture: Same as in preceding chapter 

T HE first question is based on chapter xxiv, 7: 
“ And he took the book of the covenant.” What 
is this book of the covenant? 

Ans.—All that part of Exodus from the beginning of 
the nineteenth chapter to xxiv, 11. Moses wrote it then. 

2. How may this book be regarded and what is its rela¬ 
tion to all subsequent legislation in the Pentateuch? 

Ans.—You may regard the book of the covenant as a 
constitution and all subsequent legislation as statutes 
evolved from that constitution. The United States 
adopted a constitution of principles and the revised stat¬ 
utes of the United States are all evolved from the prin¬ 
ciples contained in that constitution. So that this book of 
the covenant may be regarded as a national constitution. 

3. Why, then, is the whole of the Pentateuch called the 
law ? 

Ans.—Because every part of the Pentateuch is essen¬ 
tial to the understanding of the law. The historical part 
is just as necessary to the understanding of the law as any 
particular provision in the constitution, or any particular 
statute evolved from the constitution. The history must 
commence back at creation and go down to the passage 
over into the Promised Land. Very appropriately, then, 
do the Jews call the Pentateuch the “ torah,” the law. 

145 


146 


EXODUS 


[xix-xxiv 


4. What other Pentateuchs? 

Ans.—The five books of the Psalter. When you come 
to study the Psalms, I will show you just where each book 
of the Psalms commences and where it ends. They are 
just as distinct as the five books of Moses. Another 
Pentateuch is the fivefold gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, 
John and Paul; and as Moses’ Pentateuch is followed by 
Joshua the man of deeds, the Gospel Pentateuch is fol¬ 
lowed by Acts, which means deeds. 

5. Where and when a restatement and renewal of 
this covenant at Sinai? 

Ans.—In the book of Deuteronomy. There not only 
had been a breach of the covenant in the case of the 
golden calf, which was forgiven, but there came a more 
permanent breach at Kadesh-Barnea when the people re¬ 
fused, after God brought them to the border, to go over 
into the Promised Land, and they wandered until all that 
generation died. Their children are brought where their 
fathers would have been brought, and it became necessary 
to renew that covenant. You find the Ten Command¬ 
ments in Deuteronomy just as you find them here. 

6. State again exactly the three parts of the cove¬ 
nant. 

Ans.—(1) The Ten Commandments, or moral law. 
—Exodus xx, 1-17; (2) The Law of the Altar, or the 
Way of Approach to God, in case the Ten Command¬ 
ments were violated; (3) The judgments, or the civil 
law. Now from those three parts, the constituent ele¬ 
ments of the covenant, are evolved everything, you might 
say, in all the rest of the books of the Bible. Leviticus is 
all evolved from the law of the Altar; very much of 
Numbers and Deuteronomy is evolved from the civil 
law. 

Now before I consider Part I, that is, the Decalogue, I 


147 


xix-xxiv] THE COVENANT AT SINAI 

want to make a brief restatement of some things in the 
preceding chapter. The first is the covenant. A cove¬ 
nant is an agreement or compact between two or more 
parties with expressed stipulations showing what the two 
parties are to do. The parties to this Sinai covenant 
are: God upon the first part, and the people on the second 
part, with Moses as the daysman or mediator. In the 
preceding chapter we had the following outline: 

(i) A proposition upon God’s part for a covenant 
and the people’s acceptance of that proposition; (2) A 
preparation for entering into that covenant; (3) The 
covenant itself as expressed in three parts; (4) The 
stipulations of the covenant as shown in the last chapter; 
(5) The covenant ratified; (6) The Feast of the Cove¬ 
nant. 

Now we take up Part /, The Moral Law; and we are 
to consider that Moral Law first, generally, then specifi¬ 
cally. I can, in this chapter, get into only a part of the 
specifics of it. 

7. What do we call Part I of this Covenant? 

Ans.—We call it the Moral Law; or, using a Greek 
word, the Decalogue. 

8. What the three Scriptural names? 

Ans.—The Bible gives (1) “The Ten Words”; that is 
what decalogue means, “ the ten words spoken.” God 
spake all these words. (2) “ The Tables ” or “ Tablets,” 
whereon these words were written, and (3) “ The Tables 
of the Testimony.” When this written form was de¬ 
posited in the ark of the covenant, from that time on they 
are called “ The Tables of the Testimony.” 

9. Give the history of these tablets. 

Ans.—They were written on tables of stone by the 
finger of God; that was the original copy. Moses broke 
them when the people made a breach of the covenant in 


148 


EXODUS 


[xix-xxiv 

the matter of the golden calf. God called him up into 
the mountain again and re-wrote these Ten Command¬ 
ments; that was the second copy. Both of these God 
wrote. These two tables that God wrote on were de¬ 
posited in the ark when it was constructed, and that, too, 
before they left this Mt. Sinai. The last time they were 
seen, you learn from I Kings viii, was when Solomon 
moved that ark out of the tabernacle into the temple 
which he had built. He had it opened and in there were 
the two tables of stone on which God had written. The 
probable fate of them is this, that when Jerusalem was 
destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar he may have taken the 
ark of the covenant with the things in it as memorials of 
his victory, just as when Titus destroyed the Temple he 
took away the sacred things of the Temple; the seven- 
branched golden candlestick was carried in triumph into 
the city of Rome. 

10. Divide these ten words first into grand divisions, 
and then into subdivisions. 

Ans.—The grand divisions were two tables, one of them 
the commandments relating to God, i.e., man’s duty to 
God, and the other are the commandments expressing 
man’s relation to his fellowman. The subdivisions are 
these: all that part of Exodus from xx, 2, to the 
end of the 17th verse is divided into ten parts. Those are 
the subdivisions of the two tables. We will note them 
precisely a little further on in chapter x. 

11. What is the Romanist method of subdivision and 
what are the objections thereto? 

Ans.—The Romanists make one out of the first two 
commandments, and two out of the last. We say that the 
first commandment is, “ Thou shalt have no other gods 
before me,” and they say the first command is: “ I am 
the Lord thy God which have brought thee out of the 


xix-xxiv ] THE COVENANT AT SINAI 149 

land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage, etc.,” to the 
end of the second commandment. 

12. What other ten words and how do you compare 
them ? 

Ans.—The Ten Words of Creation and the Ten Beati¬ 
tudes spoken by our Lord. We compare them by a re¬ 
sponsive reading. 

13. How and where does Moses compress the ten into 
two? 

Ans.—The reader must find the passage, but I will give 
the compression. In one place Moses says, “ Thou shalt 
love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all 
thy mind, and with all thy strength.” In another place 
Moses says, “ Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,” 
compressing the first table into one and the second table 
into one. 

14. What the occasion of Christ’s quotation of Moses’ 
compression ? 

Ans.—An inquirer came to him propounding this ques¬ 
tion : “ Which is the great commandment in the law ? ” 
Jesus, quoting Moses, says, “ This is the great and first 
commandment, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all 
thy heart, and with all thy soul and with all thy mind. 
And a second like unto it is this, Thou shalt love thy 
neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments the 
whole law hangeth, and the prophets.” 

15. What New Testament scripture shows the soli¬ 
darity of the law? 

Ans.—The solidarity of a thing means the inability to 
touch any part without touching it all; and if you violate 
one commandment you violate all the Decalogue, and if 
you are guilty of one you are guilty of all. I am leaving 
the reader to find the place in the New Testament where 
it is said, “ He that is guilty of one point in the law is 


150 EXODUS [xix-xxiv 

guilty of all.” That passage expresses the solidarity of 
the law. 

16. How does the New Testament compress the ten 
into one? 

Ans.—I leave the reader to find this passage, but 
this is it: “ All the law is fulfilled in this one word, 
love.” 

17. Is this giving of the law, orally or in writing, the 
origin of the law? That is, was there no law before? 
Was it the origin of the law; and if not, what is it, 
and why is it? 

Ans.—This is not the origin of the law, but it is an 
addition. The Scriptures say, “ The law was added 
because of transgression.” 

18. Then, what is the law? 

Ans.—Law is that intent or purpose in the mind of the 
Creator, concerning any being or thing that He causes to 
be. Now, the intent that He had in His mind, the pur¬ 
pose, when Me made man, is the law of man. The intent 
or purpose that He had in mind when He created the tree 
is the law of the tree. That law may not be expressed. 
It inheres : it is there in the nature of the thing. It may be 
expressed in the spoken commandment or in the written 
one. But you do not have to wait until the word is 
spoken or till the spoken word is written in order to have 
law. For example, Paul says, “ Death reigned from 
Adam to Moses.” But death is the penalty of the law, 
and “ where there is no law there is no transgression.” 
Now, if law didn’t exist before given on Mt. Sinai, why 
did those people die? 

19. If the spoken or written law at Sinai was added be¬ 
cause of transgressions, show more particularly and illus¬ 
trate its purpose, both negatively and positively. Now, 
if a law exists in God’s mind and in the nature of the 


151 


xix-xxiv] THE COVENANT AT SINAI 

thing that He creates, why did He afterwards speak that 
law and have it written? 

Ans.—(i) Because of transgression. We now show 
the meaning of that, and illustrate it. We have the 
answer in this form: The purpose of speaking this law 
and of having it written negatively, was not to save men 
by it. They were lost when it was developed. But first, 
it was to discover sin. Sin is hidden and there was a 
law, but it was not written or spoken. Now, God put 
that law in writing so that it could be held up by the 
side of man, and his life, and his deeds to discover sin 
in him. Paul says, “ I had not known sin except by the 
law.” (2) This sin by the law is discovered to the man in 
order to convict him of this sin. Paul says, “ I was alive 
without the law once [that is, before I knew it I felt like 
I was all right], but when the commandment came sin re¬ 
vived and I died. I saw myself to be a dead man.” In 
the next place, (3) it was to make the sin, which looked 
like something else before the man had the law, appear 
to be sin, as Paul says in his letter to the Romans, 
and also, to make it appear to be " exceedingly sinful.” 
Now to illustrate: Suppose on a blackboard we were to 
trace a zigzag turning line. That is the path a man 
walks; he is in the woods and thinks he is going straight, 
and he feels all right. Now you put a rule there, which 
is exactly straight, and just watch how that zigzag walk 
of his is sometimes on one side and sometimes on the 
other. The rule discovers the variations; it makes it 
known. Now here is (4) another purpose of the law: 
To incite to sin in order that the heinousness of the ex¬ 
ceeding sinfulness of sin may be made manifest. Now, 
maybe you don’t believe that. Paul says it is so, and I 
can give you an illustration that will enable you to see 
just how it is so. I never saw one of the Baylor Univer- 


152 


EXODUS 


[xix-xxiv 

sity boys put his foot on top of the mail box at the street 
corner, but if the faculty should pass a law that no boy 
should put his foot on that mail box, some boy’s foot 
would go on top of it, certainly. Now, that boy may have 
imagined all along that he was law-abiding. But put a 
standard there and he wants to test it right away. I 
illustrate again: A little boy once saw a baldheaded man 
going along up the side of a hill, and the boy said, “ Go 
up, thou bald head! Now trot out your bears.” He had 
been told that if he was irreverent towards an old, bald- 
headed man, as the boys were toward Elisha, the bears 
would tear him to pieces. 

20. Explain carefully the Christian’s relation to this 
law. 

Ans.—It is a part of the old covenant, you say, and 
we have a new covenant now. Then is a Christian under 
obligations to keep this law? Is the law binding on you 
not to kill, not to lie, not to steal, not to commit adultery ? 
We certainly would be extreme antinomians if we were to 
say that as an obligation that does not rest on us. It 
does rest on us, but it does not rest on us as a way to 
eternal life. You see the distinction ? The time never will 
come when it will be right for a man to kill, to steal, com¬ 
mit adultery, to covet, and no matter who does any one of 
these things, whether saint or sinner, it is sin. But the 
keeping of the Decalogue is an obligation upon the Chris¬ 
tian because it is in the nature of his being, as when it 
was spoken at Sinai, yet that is not the Christian’s way 
to obtain eternal life. 

21. What the form of the statement of the Ten 
Words? 

Ans.—Negative and positive. For some of them: 
“ Thou shalt not ”; for others, positive: “ Honour thy 
father,” etc.; but whether the form be positive or nega- 


153 


xix-xxiv] THE COVENANT AT SINAI 

tive—if it is negative, it has a positive idea attached, and 
if it is positive it has a negative idea. If it is an affirma¬ 
tion, it is also a prohibition. No matter what the form, 
it does prescribe certain things and it does proscribe cer¬ 
tain things. 


XIV 


THE DECALOGUE—THE FIRST AND 
SECOND COMMANDMENTS 

Exodus XX, 1-6; Deuteronomy V, 6-10 

W E are now expounding the Covenant at Sinai, 
and particularly Part I, the Moral Law. And 
here I wish to commend two books to which I 
have already referred. First, a copy of the “ University 
Lectures on the Ten Commandments ” by Boardman, 
which is the best in the world. I have never seen any¬ 
thing halfway equal to it. If I were a young preacher, 
I would live on one meal a day to purchase it, if I had not 
enough money, and could not get it any other way. 
It is impossible for me to go into details with the expo¬ 
sition as Dr. Boardman does, and yet there is not a 
superfluous word in the book. There is one position of 
his, however, which I do not endorse; but it is a great 
book. 

The last time I saw Dr. Boardman was at the Southern 
Baptist Convention at Asheville, North Carolina. He was 
helped upon the platform; he was so old and feeble that 
he could not walk up the steps. He was introduced to our 
convention by Dr. J. B. Hawthorne, who has since died. 
I regret to say that in his later life Dr. Boardman lapsed 
into radical criticism to a considerable extent; but there 
is none of it in this book. The other book I commend is 
the Presbyterian Catechism on the Ten Commandments. 

154 


xx] FIRST AND SECOND COMMANDMENTS 155 


They beat the Baptists in instructing their children in 
the Word of God. I say it to our shame, that we seldom 
use a catechism in our families. As a rule, Presbyterian 
children are better instructed religiously than any other 
children. 

1. What books are specially commended? 

Ans.—The Presbyterian Catechism on the Ten Com¬ 
mandments and Boardman’s “ University Lectures on the 
Ten Commandments.” 

2. What are the variations in the form of the Ten 
Commandments as they appear in Deuteronomy v? 

Ans.—The variations are very slight. In the fourth 
commandment there is this addition by Moses: “ And 

thou shalt remember that thou wast a servant in the land 
of Egypt, and Jehovah thy God brought thee out thence 
by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm: therefore 
Jehovah thy God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath 
day.” There is a change in the order of the words of 
the tenth commandment: “ Neither shalt thou covet thy 
neighbour’s wife.” The explanation of the variations is 
that Exodus is the law as it was given; Deuteronomy is 
an orator’s public restatement of the law. 

3. Which is the original form? 

Ans.—The original form is in Exodus xx. 

4. Which ones of the Ten Commandments are not 
quoted in the New Testament? 

Ans.—I could answer that but I will leave it for you 
to find out. But I will put this additional rider on the 
question: Why is the fourth commandment, “ Remem¬ 
ber the Sabbath day to keep it holy,” not specifically 
quoted in the New Testament? What is your explana¬ 
tion of that? There is a great distinction between the 
Sabbath and the seventh day. “ Sabbaton,” sabbath, is 
a perpetual law, but the seventh day is not; the seventh 


156 


EXODUS 


[xx 

day, the “ hebdomadal ” Sabbath, the seventh-day Sabbath 
of the Old Testament, is changed; the change, the transi¬ 
tion from the seventh to the first day is significant. You 
will find the whole matter discussed in the first book of 
sermons by the author. There are three sermons on 
the Sabbath day. If you wish to pursue that subject 
further, go to that book. It can be purchased from the 
B. J. Robert Book Co., Dallas, Texas. 

5. What are the characteristics of the Ten Command¬ 
ments ? 

Ans.—I cite five: (1) Their solidarity. It is not 
necessary to break all of them in order to make a breach 
in the covenant. “ He that is guilty in one point is 
guilty of all.” And that same solidarity you can observe 
in our law. If a man is indicted for murder, it is not 
justification that he has not stolen, that he has not com¬ 
mitted adultery, that he has not refused to honour his 
father and his mother. If he is guilty of murder, he 
loses his life. The one point is sufficient. (2) Every one 
of these commandments has the negative and positive 
form, whether it is expressed or not. Sometimes it is 
given in the negative form : “ Thou shalt not kill ” ; and 
sometimes in the positive: “ Remember the Sabbath day 
to keep it holy.” But in each case, whether it be ex¬ 
pressed or not, there are both forms; a negation and pre¬ 
scription of what is right, and a proscription of what is 
wrong. (3) The third characteristic may be expressed 
in three ways: (a) Deep, broad and high, one way; that 
is, these commandments go to the root, to the trunk, 
to the branches, and they go to the fruit; or they prohibit 
the following thought as well as the following speech or 
the following deed:—our Saviour in interpreting these 
commandments said that “ whosoever hateth is a mur¬ 
derer ”; that he is a murderer in his heart; that he is a 


xx] FIRST AND SECOND COMMANDMENTS 157 

murderer in the sight of God, whether he ever killed any¬ 
body or not. That is the root of it> It goes down into the 
mind where the germ, the spring, the source of action 
lies; it goes to the intent. Then (b) the Psalmist says: 
“ Thy commandments are exceedingly broad ”; they 
touch every correlative thing. And (c) they are exceed¬ 
ingly high; they touch the throne of God. (4) The next 
characteristic is that these commandments are moral. 
Now, you know, or ought to know, the difference be¬ 
tween a positive enactment and a moral enactment. A 
positive enactment has only one reason; that is, that 
God has commanded. A moral commandment is one 
which has a reason for it; to be seen by an intelligent 
mind and calling forth a decision. The commandment 
to be baptized is a positive ordinance; “ thou shalt not 
kill,” is a moral commandment. Wherever in any com¬ 
mandment a reason is given for the commandment, that 
is proof of the moral character of the commandment. 
Let us take the first commandment to illustrate: “ I am 
Jehovah thy God, who brought thee out of the land of 
Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have 
no other gods before [or besides] me.” There a reason 
is given. Now take the fourth commandment: “ Remem¬ 
ber the Sabbath day to keep it holy,” because in six days 
Jehovah created everything and rested on the seventh 
day and because they were in bondage in Egypt and God 
delivered them. A man can take hold of those reasons. 
(5) The last characteristic is that though these com¬ 
mandments were addressed to a vast multitude of people, 
millions of them, every one of them is personal: “Thou” 
shalt not; “ thou ” shalt not, etc. 

Now we come to the exposition of the first two com¬ 
mandments, taking up the first commandment under 
question. 


158 


EXODUS 


[xx 


6. What is the meaning of the name Jehovah? 

Ans.—If you go back to Exodus iii, 1-15, you will 
find that Jehovah Himself gives to Moses an explanation 
of that name: “ I am that I am ” or “ that I will be/’ and 
when you study it out you will find that that word covers 
these thoughts: (1) that Jehovah is the personal, self- 
existing, eternal, ever-acting One; (2) who first reveals 
Elohim: “I am Jehovah, thy Elohim.” He is the re¬ 
vealing God, that is why in Genesis, first chapter, God 
said “ Elohim,” and in the second chapter it is Jehovah— 
Elohim, who (3) covenants with His people. “ Jehovah ” 
is the name of the covenanting God, who reveals the 
Father, and enters into relations with His people and 
delivers them. Now let me repeat: What is the meaning 
of the name, Jehovah? It means (1) the personal, self- 
existing, eternal, the ever-acting One, who (2) reveals 
the Elohim, (3) covenants with His people and (4) de¬ 
livers them. 

7. What are the affirmations and prohibitions of the 
first commandment? 

Ans.—It affirms the existence and government of one 
God; it denies polytheism (many gods), atheism (no 
God), materialism, which is another form of atheism, 
assuming the self-existence of matter, and the bringing 
about of everything by a fortuitous concourse of atoms. 
What it prohibits: “ Thou shalt have no other gods be¬ 
sides me.” “ Before me ” is the same as “ besides me ”; 
that is the sense. There is but one God: “ Thou shalt 
have no other God ”; that is what it prohibits. The 
reader will understand that from the Semitic people 
came the three great religions which advocate monothe¬ 
ism, that is, one God—the Jewish, the Mahometan and the 
Christian. 


xx] FIRST AND SECOND COMMANDMENTS 159 

8. What is the application of this commandment to 
us? 

Ans.—Jesus is our Jehovah. He is Jehovah the self- 
existing One; “ Before Abraham was I am “ In the 
beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and 
the Word was God, . . . and the Word was manifest 
and became flesh.” He is the revealer of the Father. 
We would not know the Father except as Jesus makes 
the Father known to us. He is called “ The express 
image of the Father ”; He is the visible of the invisible 
God; He is the Immanuel, God with us. “ Lo, I am 
with you all the days, even unto the end of the world.” 
His eternity is expressed in such expressions as these: 
“ I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last.” 
His immutability is expressed in such as these: “ Jesus 
Christ, the same yesterday, to-day and for ever.” In 
making the application to us, He is our Deliverer. Je¬ 
hovah delivered the Jews from Pharaoh; Jesus delivers 
us from the devil. They were delivered from Egyptian 
bondage; we are delivered from spiritual bondage. 

9. Cite the poem of Hildebert. 

Ans.—I will give the poem quoted by Boardman as 
to the meaning of the name Jehovah. It is in Latin. I 
will give the translation by Herbert Kynaston: 

“First and last of faith’s receiving, 

Source and sea of man’s believing, 

God, whose might is all-potential, 

God, whose truth is truth’s essential, 

Good supreme in thy subsisting, 

Good in all thy seen existing; 

Over all things, all things under, 

Touching all, from all asunder; 

Centre thou, but not intruded, 

Compassing, and yet included; 

Over all, and not ascending, 

Under all, but not depending; 

Over all, the world ordaining, 


160 


EXODUS 


[xx 


Under all, the world sustaining; 

All without, in all surrounding, 

All within, in grace abounding; 
Inmost, yet not comprehended, 

Outer still, and not extended; 

Over, yet on nothing founded, 

Under, but by space unbounded; 
Omnipresent, yet indwelling, 
Self-impelled, the world impelling; 
Force, nor fate’s predestination, 
Sways thee to one alternation; 

Ours to-day, thyself forever, 

Still commencing, ending never; 

Past with thee is time’s beginning, 
Present all its future winning; 

With thy counsels first ordaining 
Comes thy counsel’s last attaining; 
One the light’s first radiance darting 
And the elements departing.” 


That is a remarkable expression of the idea of God. 

10. How does it forbid polytheism, atheism and ma¬ 
terialism ? 

Ans.—Study the poem for these three points and give 
your own answer. 

We come to the second commandment and I will quote 
it from Deuteronomy; “ Thou shalt not make unto thee 
a graven image, nor any likeness of anything that is in 
the heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that 
is in the water under the earth; thou shalt not bow down 
thyself unto them nor serve them.” That is the command¬ 
ment itself. 

11. Is worship an instinct? 

Ans.—Here’s a commandment not to worship any 
graven image; and in order to get at the fulness of the 
thought, I raise this question. Is worship an instinct? 
It surely is. 

12. Cite Plutarch against Colotes the Epicurean. 

Ans.—I give Boardman, who quotes Plutarch. An 
Epicurean is an atheist. Plutarch writes: “ If you go 


xx] FIRST AND SECOND COMMANDMENTS 161 

through the world, you may find cities without walls, 
without letters, without rulers, without houses, without 
money, without theatres and games; but there was never 
yet seen nor shall be seen by man a single city without 
temples and gods, or without prayers, odes, prophecies 
and sacrifices, used to obtain blessings and benefits, or to 
avert curses and calamities; nay, I am of opinion that a 
city might sooner be built without any ground beneath 
it, than a commonwealth could be constituted altogether 
destitute of belief in the gods, or, being constituted, could 
be preserved.” If you find in the people of North 
America what you do not find in the people of South 
America; or if you find something among the people of 
Europe that you do not find among the people of Asia, 
then whatever that is, the principle beneath it is not 
innate, not universal. But whatever is presented in man 
in his personality, whether white or black, rich or poor, 
Barbarian, Scythian, Jew or Greek, bond or free, that is 
innate; and we do find in man, wherever we find him, 
an instinct to worship superhuman power. Plutarch 
makes a fine point in his argument there. 

13. How may this instinct be perverted, and why? 

Ans.—Paul gives the explanation in his letter to the 
Romans, first chapter. I am getting at fundamental 
things which underlie this commandment. Paul says, 
“ The wrath of God is revealed from heaven [he is 
speaking of nature now] against all ungodliness and 
unrighteousness of men, who hinder [hold] the truth 
in unrighteousness; because that which is known of God 
is manifest in them; for God manifested it unto them. 
For the invisible things of him since the creation of the 
world are clearly seen, being perceived through the 
things that are made, even his everlasting power and 
divinity; that they may be without excuse; because that 


162 


EXODUS 


[xx 

[here is the reason for perverting it], knowing God, they 
glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks; but became 
vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was 
darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became 
fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God 
for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of 
birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things ” 
(Romans i, 18-23). Now, whenever a man knows God, 
either through nature or revelation, if he does not like 
to retain the thought of God in his mind, then he can¬ 
not escape that instinct to worship which is in him. It is 
ineradicable, but he may pervert it as to the object of his 
worship. 

14. How does this second commandment forbid idol¬ 
atry? 

Ans.—Exodus xx, 5 (first clause). 

15. Does this commandment forbid art, painting and 
sculpture ? 

Ans.—There is a likeness of the author; is that against 
this commandment? How are paintings, sculpture, etc., 
not prohibited by this commandment? Because the com¬ 
mandment does not stop in saying, “ Thou shalt make 
unto thee no graven image . . . that is in heaven 

above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the 
water under the earth,” but it goes on to say, “ Thou shalt 
not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them.” That 
portrait is not an idol; you do not bow down to worship 
it. Thou shalt not make a likeness of anything and call 
that likeness God, and bow down before it and worship it. 

16. Cite Isaiah’s ridicule of idols. 

Ans.—(Isaiah xliv, 9-20). I want you to see how he 
turns the power of his sarcasm against idol worship. 

17. Cite the remarkable statement of Paul, when in 
the cultivated city of Athens. 


xx] FIRST AND SECOND COMMANDMENTS 163 

Ans.—He was brought before their supreme court in 
the Areopagus on the charge of setting forth strange 
gods. And that seemed to be a wise law that there 
should be no additions to the gods of Athens, for they 
certainly had plenty. As a writer has said, you could 
oftener see a god in Athens than you could see a man; 
there were gods in the valleys, on the hills, and high 
over all on the Acropolis was their marvellous temple of 
gods, and towering over the city was a colossal statue of 
Minerva. They were too religious, so far as the objects 
of their devotion were concerned. Now Paul standing 
there says, “ The God that made the world and all things 
therein, he, being Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not 
in temples made with hands; neither is he served by 
men’s hands, as though he needed anything, seeing he 
himself giveth to all life, and breath, and all things ” 
(Acts xvii, 24, 25). His spirit was stirred within him 
when he observed the objects worshipped by the Athe¬ 
nians. 

18. What are the reasons for the commandment? 

Ans.—I cite three. (1) The first is given in Deuter¬ 
onomy. Commenting upon the commandment, he says, 
“ You remember that when God appeared on Mt. Sinai 
you saw no likeness, no similitude; you heard His voice, 
but you did not see Him, and by that He meant to con¬ 
vey to you the prohibition to attempt to make a likeness 
when He had given you no likeness.” (2) Then Jehovah 
is a jealous God. (a) The idea is that this covenant 
was a marriage covenant; Jehovah is the husband of 
this nation, and if the wife worships somebody else than 
her husband, that naturally excites jealousy on the part 
of the husband. “ Jehovah, thy God, is a jealous God.” 
Now, as those people by that covenant were wedded to 
Jehovah, so we in the new covenant are wedded to God; 


164 


EXODUS 


[xx 

the Church is the bride of Jesus the Bridegroom; He 
performs the part of the husband. He loved the Church 
and gave Himself for it, that He might sanctify it and 
cleanse it with the washing through the word, and might 
present it to Himself a glorious Church, without spot 
or blemish. Now shall the Church, the bride of Jesus 
Christ, turn away from her husband, Jesus Christ? He 
says, “ I am a jealous God.” The next (b) reason 
assigned is that this God takes cognizance in His govern¬ 
ment of the law of heredity in both directions, visiting 
the iniquity of evil men upon the third and fourth 
generation and visiting upon good men to the thousandth 
generation their good. Now, in view of that double 
law of heredity, if I to-day worship idols, and I am the 
father of a family; if I turn away from Jehovah to make 
some other being my God, the consequences of what I 
do pass to the children, to the third and fourth genera¬ 
tion; but if I love Jehovah and adhere to Jehovah, the 
blessings pass to the thousandth generation. That reason 
is assigned. 

19. Last of all, what the necessity of this command¬ 
ment? 

Ans.—The necessity arises out of the fact that man 
has an ineradicable instinct to worship. He cannot escape 
worship. He will worship something. If man had not 
fallen, that instinct would have prohibited him from 
worshipping wrong things; and as a proof of it, take the 
history of the world. Go back yonder to Abraham, when 
God called him. At that time, nearly the whole world 
worshipped idols, even Abraham’s father. “ Remember,” 
says Joshua, “ that your fathers in Mesopotamia wor¬ 
shipped idols.” Suppose now you come a little further 
down, to this very occasion at Sinai, to see the necessity 
of giving this law. Just as soon as Moses was out of 


xx] FIRST AND SECOND COMMANDMENTS 165 

sight on the mountain, and passed out of the minds of 
the people, they said, “ As to this Moses, we know not 
what has become of him; come here, Aaron, and make us 
a god.” And they took their jewels and their gold, and 
they made a calf-idol, following the Egyptian fashion, the 
worship of the ox. They had Aaron to make an idol, 
and they made a breach in the covenant by that. And but 
for the interposition of Moses, the whole nation would 
have been blotted out right there for breaking the cove¬ 
nant. Then we are told by one of the prophets that when 
they broke the covenant again at Kadesh-Barnea, all 
through the thirty-eight years of wandering they wor¬ 
shipped idols; they did not worship Jehovah. And when 
we come to the book of Judges, we see the tribe of Dan 
getting out of the territory assigned to him to make a 
god to worship. When we come to Solomon's time, we 
see how he established idols in his old age on every hill. 
We see Ahab multiplying images of idolatry all over the 
land. We hear the words of Isaiah just cited, but his 
sarcasm did not stop the idol worship. When the king¬ 
dom was divided, Jeroboam set up a calf at Dan and at 
Bethel. Come still further down in the history and 
you see that remarkable vision of Ezekiel, where through 
a hole in the wall, from a secret chamber, he saw 
people who externally professed to worship the true God 
worshipping the rising sun and the stars. You see the 
necessity expressed in the words of Job: “If at any 
time I have secretly caused my hand—,” etc. And com¬ 
ing down to the time of Christ, except the Jews, the whole 
world was given to idolatry, notwithstanding all of the 
culture of the Greeks, whether at Athens or at Ephesus, 
or at Corinth, or any other cities that they established in 
their colonies, everywhere their religion was a most de¬ 
basing worship of idols. It was so at Rome, so in the 


EXODUS 




German forests and amid the Druidic system of England. 
Now that tendency of the human heart having the in¬ 
stinct to worship, and not wishing to retain a knowledge 
of God in their minds, they pervert that instinct and 
worship something else. Therefore God gave this second 
commandment to those who were lovers of idol worship. 
The Jews all through their history, if they had a chance, 
would lapse into idolatry; and they would now create 
over again that idolatry, but for the Babylonian cap¬ 
tivity. No Jew since then, as far as I know, has ever 
been an idolater. And with their return from that cap¬ 
tivity came the synagogue, which was a safeguard against 
idolatry. This Torah, this law, was taught in every com¬ 
munity. 

Now I am not going into great detail, but there are 
some things in these commandments that I want to bring 
out. 

A question: “ Was the covenant broken before the Ten 
Commandments were given ? ” 

Ans.—No. Moses was coming down from the moun¬ 
tain. These commandments he was bringing down on 
the tables of stone were uttered by a voice, and the cove¬ 
nant was made and ratified before that golden calf was 
made. So that the golden calf was not made before the 
commandments were given to Israel. The people knew 
them, as is recorded in Exodus, twentieth chapter. 


XV 


THE DECALOGUE—THE THIRD 
COMMANDMENT 

Exodus XX, Deuteronomy V, n 

R EPEAT the third commandment, showing its di¬ 
vision into parts. 

Ans.—“ Thou shalt not take the name of Je¬ 
hovah thy God in vain; for Jehovah will not hold him 
guiltless that taketh his name in vain.” This command¬ 
ment is divided into three parts: (i) The name of God; 
(2) In vain, taking that name in vain; (3) The warning, 
giving a penal sanction to the commandment: “ God will 
not hold him guiltless.” 

I. THE NAME OF GOD 

2. What is the important phrase in this commandment ? 
Ans.—The name of God. 

3. What three historical incidents given in the Penta¬ 
teuch go to show the progress of revelation as to the 
meaning of “ the name of God ” ? 

Ans.—(1) The passage in Genesis xxxii, 24-29: “And 
Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him 
until the breaking of the day. And when he saw that 
he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of 
his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob’s thigh was strained, 
as he wrestled with him. And he said, Let me go, for the 

167 


168 


EXODUS 


[xx 

day breaketh. And he said, I will not let thee go, except 
thou bless me. . . . And he said, Thy name shall be 
called no more Jacob, but Israel; for thou hast striven 
with God and with men, and hast prevailed. And Jacob 
asked him, and said, Tell me, I pray thee, thy name. 
And he said, Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my 
name?” This incident shows an exceeding great de¬ 
sire upon the part of Jacob to know the name of the one 
who could bless him and promote him and with whom he 
had successfully wrestled in prayer. The next historical 
incident is in Exodus iii, 5, 6, which gives an account of 
Moses seeing the burning bush: “ Draw not nigh hither; 
put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon 
thou standest is holy ground. Moreover he said, I am the 
God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of 
Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” Verse 13: “ And Moses 
said unto God, behold when I come unto the children of 
Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers 
hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, 
What is his name? what shall I say unto them? ” (Here 
is the advance) : “ And God said unto Moses, I AM 
THAT I AM; tell them that I AM hath sent you.” And 
in the following scriptures is the third instance; Exodus 
xxxiii, 18-23; xxxiv, 5-7: “And Moses said, I beseech 
thee, show me thy glory. And God said, I will make all 
my goodness to pass before thee, and I will proclaim the 
name of the Lord before thee.” And now follows a 
proclamation of the name of the Lord: “ And Jehovah 
descended in the cloud and stood with Moses there, and 
proclaimed the name of Jehovah. And Jehovah passed 
before him, and proclaimed [here we get the name], 
Jehovah, Jehovah, a God merciful and gracious, long- 
suffering and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping 
mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgres- 


xx] THE THIRD COMMANDMENT 169 

sion and sin; and that will by no means clear the guilty, 
visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and 
upon the children’s children, upon the third and upon 
the fourth generation.” These historical incidents an¬ 
swer the question: What is thy name? And the com¬ 
mandment says, “ Thou shalt not take the name of the 
Lord thy God in vain,” and we have said the most im¬ 
portant phrase in it is, “ the name of God ”; hence the 
next question: 

4. What is Isaiah’s revelation of the name? 

Ans.—Isaiah ix, 6, says, “ For unto us a child is born, 
unto us a son is given, and the government shall be upon 
his shoulder; and his name shall be called Wonderful, 
Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of 
Peace. Of the increase of his government and of peace 
there shall be no end.” 

5. How does John in his gospel further reveal his 
name? 

Ans.—John xiv, 8-14, is the account of it. Philip says 
unto Him, “ Lord, show us the Father and it sufficeth 
us.” He wanted to understand what Jesus had just said 
about the Father. “ What do you mean by the Father? ” 
Isaiah says that He shall be called the “ Everlasting 
Father.” And Philip wants to know and see what that 
means. Jesus says, “ Have I been with you so long time, 
Philip, and you have not known me? Whenever you 
have seen me you have seen the Father.” 

6. What further revelation by our Lord after He 
ascended into glory? 

Ans.—In Revelation xix, 11: “ And I saw the heaven 
opened, and behold, a white horse, and he that sat thereon 
called [note the name] Faithful and True.” Verse 16: 
“ And he hath on his garment, and on his thigh a name 


170 


EXODUS 


[xx 

written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.” 
Thus I pass through the Bible, giving a few of many in¬ 
stances to show you the progress made in the revelation 
of the meaning of God’s name. 

7. Cite other New Testament passages showing the im¬ 
portance of this name. 

Ans.—Matthew vi, 9, where Jesus is teaching them to 
pray: “Hallowed be thy name.” Matthew xviii, 15: 
“ Whosoever receiveth one of these little ones in my 
name receiveth me.” In Matthew xviii, 20, He says, 
“ Where two or three come together in my name I am 
there.” In Matthew xxviii, 19, “ baptizing them in the 
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
Spirit.” John xiv, 13: “ Whatsoever ye shall ask in my 
name, that will I do.” John xx, 31: Believing on Christ 
secures life through His name. In Acts iv, 12, Peter says, 
“ In no other name is there salvation,” and v, 41, he says, 
“.Suffer for the name.” Colossians iii, 17, says: “Do 
everything in the name of the Lord.” Philippians ii, 9: 
“ The name that is above every name,” and Revelation 
xiv, 1: “ His name shall be written in their foreheads.” 
This commandment says, “ Thou shalt not take the name 
of the Lord thy God in vain.” 

8. What, then, is the meaning of the name of God? 

Ans.—The name of God means God Himself as re¬ 
vealed; therefore it means all His nature, virtues, attri¬ 
butes, the character, authority, purpose, methods, provi¬ 
dences, words, institutions, truth, kingdom; in a word, 
what has been revealed, whether the revelation is con¬ 
cerning His nature, virtues, attributes, His word, His 
kingdom or His truth, or anything else. 

9. What the great hymns on the name? 

Ans.—(1) Wesley’s hymn on Jacob’s question, What 
is Thy name? commencing: “ Come, O thou Traveller un- 


xx] THE THIRD COMMANDMENT 171 

known, Whom still I hold, but cannot see.” (2) The 
Coronation hymn: 

“ All hail the power of Jesus’ name, 

Let angels prostrate fall.” 

10. What modern book has been written on the sub¬ 
ject? 

Ans.—The title is “ In His Name,” and the object of 
the book is to show the significance of the name of God 
as apprehended by man in his obedience to God. And 
now we come to the second part: 

11 . in vain 

11. What is the primary meaning of that phrase? 

Ans.—“ Thou shalt not use the name of God to attest 

a falsehood,” which, translated literally, means, “ Thou 
shalt not utter the name of God unto a falsehood.” For 
example, in Leviticus xix, 12: “Thou shalt not swear 
by my name falsely.” That shows you must not use 
God’s name to attest a falsehood. 

12. What is the secondary meaning? Illustrate. 

Ans.—Thou shalt not evade, take back, repudiate or 

fail to perform any pledge or vow made to God; or 
any oath made to Him. If you do, you violate this com¬ 
mandment. I will cite a few points on that. Numbers 
xxx, 1, 2: “And Moses spake unto the heads of the 
tribes of the children of Israel, saying, This is the thing 
which the Lord hath commanded. If a man vow a 
vow unto the Lord, or swear an oath to bind his soul 
with a bond, he shall not break his word; he shall do 
according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth.” Next 
Deuteronomy xxiii, 21: “ When thou shalt vow a vow 


172 


EXODUS 


[xx 

unto the Lord thy God, thou shalt not be slack to pay it: 
For the Lord thy God will surely require it of thee; and 
it would be sin in thee.” Then Ecclesiastes v, 4-6, bears 
on this point, and I wish I could write it on the face of 
the skies for the benefit of some Baptist preachers. I 
read thus: “ When thou vowest a vow unto God, defer 
not to pay it; for he hath no pleasure in fools: pay that 
which thou hast vowed. Better is it that thou shouldest 
not vow, than that thou shouldest vow and not pay. Suf¬ 
fer not thy mouth to cause thy flesh to sin; neither say 
thou before the angel, that it was an error: ”—i.e., I made 
a mistake in making that pledge—“ wherefore should God 
be angry at thy voice and destroy the work of thy 
hands ? ” I say solemnly, that a lesson which needs to be 
burned with fire on the hearts of Christian people is the 
sanctity of a pledge made to God and to the cause of God. 
I wrote a man a letter the other day about $2.50 he 
wanted to go back on. I said, “ I am willing to pay this 
$2.50 for you, but what is going to be the demoralization 
that will come to our people from the repudiation of their 
pledges? I can show you a way, if you will give me an 
opportunity, by which I can come to your church and 
raise that $2.50 for you. Not that it won’t cost me more 
than $2.50 to do that, but I will at least have prevented 
the demoralization that will result from the forfeiture of 
your vow made to God.” 

13. What is the third meaning? 

Ans.—Thou shalt not use God’s name lightly, jestingly, 
foolishly, irreverently. 

14. If these be the three meanings of this command¬ 
ment, what therefore does the commandment forbid ? 

Ans.—(1) Perjury; “Thou shalt not lift up thy hand 
to the Lord thy God in falsehood.” That is, you shall not 
hold up your hand and make oath falsely. That is per- 


173 


xx] THE THIRD COMMANDMENT 

jury. (2) The non-keeping of vows, oaths and pledges 
which have been made unto Jehovah. (3) It forbids, in 
a religious matter (now mark that), all lying of thought, 
speech, deed and appearances; such as, hypocrisy, tithing 
of mint, cummin and anise, and neglecting the weightier 
matters of the law; such as making a pretence of 
long prayers to be seen of men; such as the lie that 
Ananias told. We are not discussing truth in general, 
nor lying in general, but we are discussing lying in 
religious matters in order for it to come under the 
purview of this law. Peter said to Ananias, “ Did you 
sell the land for so much?” “Yes, that is all of it.” 
“ Ananias, thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God,” 
and he dropped dead. After a while his wife came in. 
Peter says, “Did you sell the land for so much?” 
“Yes.” “Is this all of it?” “Yes.” And she drops 
dead. “ God will not hold him guiltless that taketh his 
name in vain.” (4) It forbids all swearing, jesting or 
speaking seriously, by any other name or thing other than 
God Himself. It forbids taking an oath at all, unless the 
oath is taken unto God, even though you are sincere 
about it. For instance, you can’t swear by the Temple; 
you can’t swear by the gold of the Temple; you can’t 
swear by the seven-branched candlestick, nor by anything 
that is in the skies or on the earth or under the sea; you 
can’t swear on a crucifix. (5) It forbids all irreverence 
toward things or persons that are sacred on account of 
their relation to God. That is why you are commanded 
to “ honour the king,” if you live in a monarchy; that is 
why you are not to laugh and ridicule in a church, a 
church that is sacred to the Lord; that is why you pay 
respect to the pastor; he occupies a relation Godward 
toward you. 

15. What are the things it inculcates or sanctions? 


174 EXODUS [xx 

Ans.—(i) It sanctions religious oaths and vows that 
are solemnly made unto God: (a) In solemnizing cove¬ 
nants. If a covenant is made, a sacred covenant in which 
God is involved, then it sanctions an oath to confirm 
that covenant, (b) In solemnizing introductions into 
office, e.g., Ezra and Nehemiah (and many others when 
entering the priest's office) took oath to be faithful in 
discharging the duties of that office, (c) In solemnizing 
testimony where you have to testify in a court. Exodus 
xxii, io, ii, is an example: “If a man deliver unto his 
neighbour an ox or a sheep or any beast to keep, and it 
die or be hurt or driven away, nobody seeing it, then 
shall an oath of the Lord be between them both; one 
of them that he hath not stolen his neighbour’s goods, 
and the owner shall accept thereof, and he shall not make 
it good.” Now a question arises here: A man has de¬ 
posited some of his property in trust to another, and it 
disappears. Nobody saw how it disappeared. This law 
says in such a case the man who had it in trust shall 
go before God and take oath that he didn’t steal the 
property; he doesn’t know what became of it. (d) Again, 
in confirming allegiance to a ruler or a king. A man 
comes over to the United States and says, “ I want to be 
a citizen.” The law requires him to be put on oath that 
he will be in allegiance to the United States. Reference 
to this is in Ecclesiastes viii, 2. (e) In attesting official 

fidelity and character. I Samuel xii, 5, where an old 
man laid down his office after a king had been chosen in 
the presence of his people, and lifted up his hands and 
made an oath that while he was in office he had taken 
nothing wrongfully from any man; that he had never 
been bribed. Again (f) in attesting one’s religious 
veracity. I cite a case, II Corinthians i, 23: “ Moreover 
I call God for a witness upon my soul, that to spare you 


175 


xx] THE THIRD COMMANDMENT 

I came not as yet to Corinth.” Take Galatians i, 20: 
“ Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before 
God I lie not.” That is the strongest form of an oath, 
(g) In attesting vows, e.g., Jacob in Genesis xxv, 33; 
and a passage in the Psalms. (2) It inculcates absolute 
fidelity in keeping oaths and in redeeming vows and 
pledges that have been made unto Jehovah. (3) It incul¬ 
cates sincerity in thought, opinion, speech, deed, or ap¬ 
pearance in all matters of religion. (4) It inculcates 
reverence for God’s name and for all persons and things 
that are sacred by reason of relation to God. 

16. Cite Scripture proof that it does sanction religious 
oaths and vows that are made to God, under the follow¬ 
ing heads: Covenant Oaths, Judicial Oaths, Official 
Oaths, Allegiance Oaths, oaths to test official integrity 
and to test veracity in religious matters. 

Ans.—(1) Covenant Oaths: Genesis xiv, 22f; xxi, 
22f; xxvi, 26-29; xxiv, 2, 3, 9, 37, 41; xxv, 33; xxxi, 53; 
xlvii, 28-31; 1 , 25 et al. (2) Judicial Oaths: Matthew 
xxvi, 63; Exodus xxii, iof; Numbers v, 19-24; Hebrews 
vi, 16. (3) Official Oaths: II Kings xi, 4; Ezra x, 5; 

Nehemiah v, 12. (4) Allegiance Oaths: Ecclesiastes viii, 
2. (5) To attest official integrity: I Samuel xii, 5. (6) 

To attest veracity in religious matters: II Corinthians i, 
23; Galatians i, 20. 

1 7. Does our Lord in Matthew v, 33-37, countermand 
making all these oaths that are strictly religious and ex¬ 
clusively and solemnly made unto Him? If not, give 
proof. ' 

Ans.—The Sermon on the Mount, Matthew v: “ Again 
ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, 
Thou shalt not perjure thyself, but shalt keep unto the 
Lord thine oaths.” That is, thou shalt perform all oaths 
made unto God. “ But I say unto you, Swear not at all; 


176 


EXODUS 


[xx 

neither by heaven, for it is God’s throne; nor by the earth, 
for it is his footstool; neither by Jerusalem, for it is the 
city of the great king. Neither shalt thou swear by 
thine head; because thou canst not make one hair white 
or black. But let your communication be yea, yea; and 
nay, nay; for whatsoever is more than these cometh of 
evil.” My question is: Does the Lord here absolutely 
forbid the making of the kind of oath sanctioned by the 
third commandment? (i) They must be religious oaths. 
(2) They must be made exclusively to God, such as 
covenant oaths, judicial oaths, etc., as enumerated. Jesus, 
I say, does not forbid these oaths, because when He says, 
“ Swear not at all,” He then specifies what are the things 
in which you shall not swear at all, and God’s name is not 
in it at all. He says, “ Swear not at all,” i.e., neither by 
heaven, nor by earth, nor by Jerusalem, nor by thy head. 
He names the things by which you shall not swear. Fur¬ 
ther proof that that is right: Jesus Himself took the 
judicial oath when He was on trial when the High Priest 
said, “ I adjure Thee,” that is, “ I put thee on oath before 
God, Are you the Messiah ? ” He says, “ I am.” He 
took an oath that He was the Messiah. Would Jesus 
Himself commit a sin ? Or did Paul commit such a sin in 
taking those oaths he took ? Read carefully the comment 
in Broadus’ “ Commentary on Matthew.” 

18. What religious sects so understood Christ and prac¬ 
tised it ? 

Ans.—Anabaptists; also the Quakers; and I believe the 
Mormons do. 


III. THE WARNING 

19. What warning giving penal sanction to this com¬ 
mandment, and some examples? 


xx] THE THIRD COMMANDMENT 177 

Ans.—The warning is: “ For the Lord will not hold 
him guiltless who taketh his name in vain.” Ananias 
will do for an example; and in the letter to the Romans 
Paul says concerning the heathen, that turning away from 
God they become covenant-breakers. You may hunt out 
others. 


XVI 


THE DECALOGUE—THE FOURTH 
COMMANDMENT 

Exodus XX, 8-ii; Deuteronomy V, 12-15 

E now study the fourth commandment. I take 
up the questions in their order. 



T T 1. What is the relation of the first, second, 
third and fourth commandments? 

Ans.—In the first commandment we are commanded 
to worship Jehovah and none other; in the second com¬ 
mandment we are commanded to worship directly and not 
through intervention of anything; in the third we are 
commanded to worship Jehovah sincerely, not falsely; 
and in the fourth commandment we are directed to wor¬ 
ship Jehovah, as to time, in the regular period set apart. 
The four enjoin Worship, direct, sincere and when. 

2. Repeat the fourth commandment. 

Ans.—I quote three accounts. In Exodus xx, 8-11, it 
reads: “ Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six 
days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work; but the 
seventh day is a sabbath unto Jehovah thy God; in it 
thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy 
daughter, nor thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, 
nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 
for in six days Jehovah made heaven and earth, the sea 
and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: where¬ 
fore Jehovah blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.” 


178 


xx] THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT 179 

Deuteronomy v, 12-15, where Moses recapitulates: “ Ob¬ 
serve the sabbath day, to keep it holy, as Jehovah thy 
God commanded thee. Six days shalt thou labour and do 
all thy work; but the seventh day is a sabbath unto Je¬ 
hovah thy God : in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor 
thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy man-servant, nor thy 
maid-servant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy 
cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy 
man-servant and thy maid-servant may rest as well as 
thou. And thou shalt remember that thou wast a servant 
in the land of Egypt, and Jehovah thy God brought thee 
out thence by a mighty hand and by an outstretched 
arm; therefore Jehovah thy God commanded thee to keep 
the sabbath day/’ The other account is in Exodus xvi, 
22, preceding both of these others: “ And it came to 

pass, that on the sixth day they gathered twice as much 
bread, two omers for each one; and all the rulers of the 
congregation came and told Moses. And he said unto 
them, This is that which Jehovah hath spoken, To-mor¬ 
row is a solemn rest, a holy sabbath unto Jehovah; bake 
that which ye will bake, and boil that which ye will boil; 
and all that remaineth over lay up for you to be kept until 
the morning. And they laid it up until the morning, as 
Moses bade; and it did not become foul, neither was there 
any worm therein. And Moses said, Eat that to-day; for 
to-day is a sabbath unto Jehovah; to-day ye shall not find 
it in the field. Six days ye shall gather it; but on the 
seventh day is the sabbath, in it there shall be none.” 

In these three scriptures the Sabbath is connected with 
the creation, with the manna and with the deliverance 
from Egypt. 

3. Considering subsequent legislation and history, give 
an analysis of the fourth commandment, and explain and 
give an answer to each item of the analysis. 


180 


EXODUS 


[xx 

Ans.—This ends the questions, but this third question 
has twenty-four sub-questions in it, and each is a big one. 
We will give the analysis and then discuss it: (i) Its 
name; (2) Its authority; (3) Its sanctity; (4) Its duties; 
(5) Its reasons; (6) Its commemorations; (7) Its antici¬ 
pations; (8) Its time; (9) Its signification; (10) Its 
cycle; (11) Its festivals and offerings; (12) Its excep¬ 
tions; (13) Its rewards for observance; (14) Its penalties 
for non-observance; (15) Its preparation; (16) Its prof¬ 
anations (notable cases of weekly Sabbaths) ; (17) Its re¬ 
markable judgment—case of land-sabbaths; (18) Its 
song; (19) Its cessation in prophecy; (20) Its abroga¬ 
tion in fact; (21) Its Christian successor; (22) Its suc¬ 
cessor—the argument for , Scriptural and historical; (23) 
Its enemies to-day; (24) Its final antitype. That is the 
analysis; and it takes into account subsequent sabbatic 
legislation and subsequent sabbatic history. We take: 

(1) Its name ? 

Ans.—“ Sabbath,” which is merely an English transla¬ 
tion of the Hebrew word “ Sabbaton ” and that means 
“ rest,” a period of rest. 

(2) Its authority? 

Ans.—Jehovah appointed it, preceded both by example 
and by precept. 

(3) Its sanctity? 

Ans.—Jehovah blessed and hallowed it. Its holy nature 
comes from God’s blessing and hallowing. Therefore 
in many of the scriptures the name of it is the “ holy 
sabbath.” 

(4) Its duties? 

Ans.—These are (a) to work six days. It is impossible 
for me to magnify the dignity of labour. It is a great 
misconception to hold that work comes from sin; it pre¬ 
ceded sin. When God made man and gave him his com- 


xx] THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT 181 

mission, He gave him a working commission, viz.: to sub¬ 
due the earth; when He put Adam in the garden before 
sin He told him to dress the garden and to keep it, keep 
it in trust. So that labour is one of the things that 
comes from the other side of the fall of man; that is the 
first duty— work. It drives a spear through the heart of 
the lazy man; it drives the non-worker away from the 
table. Paul said, “ If a man won’t work, neither shall he 
eat.” (b) The second duty is rest on the seventh day. 
Labour on that day was to be suspended; it is suspended 
for you, your wife, your sons, your daughters, your serv¬ 
ants and your cattle. There is a reason for this which 
we will consider under the next head. The (c) third rea¬ 
son is for religions instruction. God commanded Moses 
that on each one of the cycle of sabbaths when they got 
over into the Promised Land, the whole nation should 
come together, men, women and children, and that they 
should be instructed in all the teachings of God’s Word, 
(d) The next thing is worship, which is a different kind 
of rest; a cessation from physical labour gives rest to the 
body, worshipping God gives rest to the soul. No man 
has soul rest that does not worship God. Another (e) 
duty is that of offerings. I have not time to discuss these; 
you will find in Numbers and particularly in Leviticus the 
offerings that are to be made on the Sabbath day, and 
on the whole cycle of sabbaths; there they are specified. 
So that you now see what are its duties: work, rest, in¬ 
struction, worship and offerings. 

(5) What are its reasons? 

Ans.—It could not be a moral law unless there was a 
reason underlying it. (a) On account of its relation to 
God. Man is related to God; he is God-created, and 
after redemption he is God’s redeemed one. Now it is 
essential that the man should always be sensible of that 


182 


EXODUS 


[xx 

highest relation, that paramount relation. But if there be 
no particular time when that relation is to be considered, 
that man is a wreck. Whenever you find a man that has 
no Sabbath, you find a man that has no sensibiilty of his 
relation to God. (b) In relation to the man upon whom 
the commandment rests. In the nature of the physical 
man, inherently there is a necessity for periods of rest. 
That this relation is inherent is evident from the testi¬ 
mony of people who are not considered themselves wit¬ 
nesses for religion. They say of it: “ If the mind 
just keeps right on, work work, work, and does not stop, 
that man will snap, break.” It is not only true of the 
mind, but it is true also of the body; it is not only true 
of the body, but it is true of the axe with which you cut 
down a tree. Take a steam engine and engineers will 
tell you that the engine which is run every day, and is 
not laid off, will not last. Even a steam engine calls for 
a sabbath day. The reason, I say, is inherent in the man, 
and means a different relation, which is highest of all 
relations, the paramount relation that man should be kept 
close to God. Suppose that he never gets more than six 
days from him, you can always call that fellow back; but 
where he gets a year away, or twenty years away, then it 
is very hard to ever get him back. Another reason is, 
(c) toward his fellowmen is a relation; we are related 
to our fellowmen. For instance, if I own a factory and 
employ my fellowmen to work in that factory, I have 
no right to take advantage of their necessity and make 
them work on Sunday. The labourer must rest; the slave 
must rest; and God says, “ Remember that you were 
under taskmasters in Egypt; that then you knew no sab¬ 
bath, and how hard that made your bondage. Now let 
the thought of your fellowman come into your mind when 
you remember this day; that servant needs rest; that 


xx] THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT 183 

ox which you are working to the wagon, and that horse 
that you are ploughing with six days needs a rest.” So 
that the reasons of the Sabbath arise from relations to 
God, to man, and are inherent in our fellowman and in 
the lower creatures, (d) Included in the idea of our 
fellowman comes the social idea, or relation to society, 
since man is made a social being. Now, if society be¬ 
comes so corrupt that it rots, then it becomes a stench to 
heaven; this is true wherever there is no Sabbath. The 
whole body politic becomes corrupt. In his colonial his¬ 
tory, Bancroft describes a certain community in Ver¬ 
mont. It is the most remarkable historical testimony 
I ever read. He says that a visit to the community 
would impress forever any man that was susceptible 
to impression as to the observance of the Sabbath; the 
godliness of the community, the respect that the chil¬ 
dren have for their parents; the absence of jails, the 
needlessness of sheriffs; a little paradise, (e) As I 
have shown, we sustain a relation to lower creatures. 

(6) Its commemorations? 

Ans.—From the three scriptures I read, you will notice 
(a) God’s rest after the creation of the world, Genesis 
ii, 2; (b) God’s giving of the manna, which was to be 
the food of His people, Exodus xvi, 25-31; (c) God’s 
deliverance of His people from bondage, Deuteronomy 
v, 15. These three stupendous thoughts of the past 
would rise up like mountain peaks whenever they took a 
retrospective glance. God wrote that “ in six days he 
created the heavens and the earth, and all that in them 
is, and rested on the seventh day.” When His people 
were in bondage He gave them freedom. He delivered 
them. When they were in the wilderness and hungry 
He gave them bread, bread from heaven, a miracle that 
lasted forty years. 


184 


EXODUS 


[xx 


(7) Its anticipation? 

Ans.—It not only commemorates past events, but it 
looks forward to a great event, viz.: Rest in the Promised 
Land. On their pilgrimage and in the wilderness they 
looked back at the creation and the deliverance, and 
anticipated the end of their pilgrimage, where, in the 
Promised Land, they should have rest and peace. 

(8) Its time? 

Ans.—The seventh day: “ hebdomos.” The seventh 
day does not necessarily mean the Sabbath: “ sabbaton ” 
means sabbath. Hebdomos was the time, the seventh 
day. 

(9) Its sign? What does it signify? 

Ans.—In Exodus xxxi, 13, 16, 17, and Ezekiel xx, 12, 
20, the sign is brought out very clearly. “ This sab¬ 
bath shows the covenant between you and me, as a sign to 
you that you are with Jehovah under covenant rela¬ 
tions.” The seventh-day Sabbath was the God-appointed 
sign of the national covenant with Jehovah. 

(10) Its cycle? 

Ans.—There were seventh-day sabbaths, or weekly sab¬ 
baths; lunar, or monthly sabbaths; annual sabbaths, i.e., 
sabbaths that came only once a year, e.g., the Passover, 
Pentecost and the Tabernacle sabbaths; the land-sab¬ 
baths, or the seventh-year sabbaths. Every seventh year 
the land must rest. They were not to put a plough in at 
all during that time; if anything was produced voluntarily 
they took that, and they took that seventh year, which 
would have been devoted to business, and came up to 
Jerusalem and spent it there entirely, with all the men, 
women and children; and if they were afraid to leave 
their homes from the most distant parts of the territory 
of the Promised Land, then they were to remember that 
as they left, Jehovah would be its guard, and solemnly 


xx] THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT 185 

assured them that if they in faith left that field un¬ 
cultivated and went up to spend an entire year in a great 
big Bible study, that He would keep the enemies off 
and the wolf of starvation from their door. But the 
cycle is not complete yet. There was the fiftieth-year 
sabbath, called the Jubilee: 

“ Blow ye the trumpet, blow: 

The Jubilee has come.” 

When seven times seven years have passed away, and 
you have given God a seventh of the week, and the 
thirtieth of the month, and a part of the year, and the 
seventh year; when you come to the end of the forty- 
ninth year, which is a land-year, the whole land must 
give another year, called Jubilee year; and the object 
of that Jubilee is to hedge against alienation of title to 
property, restoration of bond-servants to freedom, to 
prevent land-monopolies. You could not sell a piece of 
land, you could only give a lease on it, till the end of 
the forty-ninth year; and if you were within six months 
of the Jubilee, you could not lease it for more than six 
months. But when the Jubilee comes, it reverts back to 
the original owner. What a pity the politicians could 
not look at this thing in avoiding the land laws! What 
a tremendous gang of greedy men, that according to 
Isaiah sins against God, by adding land to land, house to 
house, until there is no room for the people. What then 
is the cycle? Weekly sabbaths, the land-sabbath or every 
seventh year, and the Jubilee or fiftieth-year sabbath. 
That is the cycle. 

(n) What are its festivals and offerings? 

Ans.—In connection with the Sabbath there was a feast, 
the weekly festival; it means a time for a feast; there 


186 


EXODUS 


[xx 

was a weekly feast, a monthly feast, three annual feasts, 
lasting quite a while, e.g., the Passover Feast. They 
had the Passover Day and then had the Passover feast, 
which lasted a week; and they had the Pentecost proper, 
followed by the feast of Pentecost. All these things 
you learn in Leviticus, but we will come to that later. 

(12) What are its exceptions? 

Ans.—The law says that on the seventh day thou 
shalt do no work, neither thyself, thy children, thy serv¬ 
ants, nor thy beasts. Is that law absolute, or has it ex¬ 
ceptions? Among the exceptions are certainly the fol¬ 
lowing, which are referred to repeatedly by our Lord and 
discussed in the subsequent legislation. We take up first 
the sheep and the ox. It is the Sabbath day. You are to 
do no work; and you hear a sheep bleating or an ox 
bellowing, and you go out and find the ox or the sheep 
in a ditch. There is a commandment: “ Thou shalt do 
no work/’ forbidding you to take that poor suffering 
sheep out of the ditch. But in mercy and kindness to 
animals you take him out. Next you bring your old 
ploughhorse up on Saturday night and hitch him in the 
stall; it is a quarter of a mile to the tank and it is Sun¬ 
day. “ Water my horse to-day? No, I must do no work 
on the Sabbath day.” Jesus says, “ You go, take that 
horse and water it on the Sabbath day.” That is a neces¬ 
sity to him; the other was a mercy. Next, “ thou shalt 
do no work.” Shall not the priest that offers the sacri¬ 
fices work in getting these sacrifices ready? Yes; that 
does not alter it. Jesus said, “ Do you not see that the 
priests work on the Sabbath day? ” which is the hardest 
workday the preacher has; he is working as he minis¬ 
ters to God’s people. We take up another case: The law 
of circumcision says that on the eighth day this child 
shall be circumcised. So if that comes on the Sabbath 


xx] THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT 187 

day, you circumcise it. Another exception is the Sabbath 
day’s journey. The camp of Israel is afterward de¬ 
scribed as being in such a position that the farthest tribe, 
if you measure from the centre where the tabernacle 
stood to the most distant corner, it amounted to as much 
as about one-eighth of a mile; that is a Sabbath day’s 
journey. In other words, you may travel from your 
place to your appointment, your Sabbath day’s journey 
may be ioo miles, but don’t you go on business on Sun¬ 
day. So that we have found quite a number of excep¬ 
tions touching mercy and necessity and the performance 
of duties otherwise required like circumcision and the 
work of the priests. 

(13) Its rewards for observance? 

Ans.—These are scattered over the Bible. We have 
some beautiful accounts of these rewards in Isaiah lvi, 2, 
4-7, where it talks about the poor outlaw and the stranger; 
if he shall at heart enter into God’s covenant, shall keep 
God’s Sabbaths, he goes on to tell then of the rewards 
that God shall give him; that if in his heart he desires to 
honour God by keeping that day for Him; if he follows, 
if he shall observe that day, then God blesses him. As an 
old proverb has it: 

“ A Sabbath well spent brings a week of content.” 

(14) Its penalty for non-observance? 

Ans.—For non-observance of the week-day Sabbath 
the penalty was death or other judgments. 

(15) The preparation of the Sabbathf 

Ans.—A man cannot keep a day holy without making 
preparation for it. Suppose that fellow that went out to 
get sticks to make a little fire had gathered his sticks 
the day before. Now, whatever you can do the day be- 


188 EXODUS [xx 

fore, you must; just think that the Sabbath is coming to¬ 
morrow; therefore the gathering to-day of twice as much 
manna as they did on the ordinary day. Prepare your 
work. 

(16) Its profanations? 

Ans.—The book of Numbers tells us of a man who 
went out to gather sticks on the Sabbath day and he 
was stoned to death for labour on the Sabbath day. In 
Nehemiah x we have an account of those who bought 
and sold on the Sabbath day. They were expelled frpm 
the covenant, and excommunication was inflicted upon 
those guilty; and so was the penalty for the cycle of 
sabbaths like the lunar sabbaths and the annual sab¬ 
baths : “ The soul that will not come up to the Pass- 

over shall be cut off from his people,” excommuni¬ 
cated. 

(17) Its judgment in case of land-sabbaths? 

Ans.—Now we come to consider the penalty for the 
non-observance of the land-sabbath, which is recorded 
in II Chronicles xxxvi, 21. Jeremiah made a prophecy 
because for four hundred and ninety years during the 
period of the monarchy they had disregarded this law. 
He says, “ You have not given the sabbaths to the land; 
therefore you shall go into captivity for seventy years, 
and the land shall have its sabbath.” Amos in the eighth 
chapter brings out a penalty on those who profane 
God’s Sabbath, who draw a long breath and say, “ Oh, 
when will this Sunday pass away? I want to get to 
business. I am tired of all this religious instruction; I 
want to go fishing, hunting, etc.” 

(18) Its song? 

Ans.—Psalm xcii, 1-15. This Psalm was written ex¬ 
pressly for the Sabbath day. 

(19) Its cessation in prophecy? 


xx] THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT 189 

Ans.—The cessation of the whole cycle in prophecy is 
found in Hosea ii, n, yea, a dozen prophecies are made 
that the entire sabbatic cycle shall cease. God says, “ I 
will cause to cease,” and mentions the weekly, lunar and 
annual sabbaths, saying, “ they shall cease.” 

(20) Its abrogation in fact? 

Ans.—You find proof of the abrogation of the Mosaic 
sabbaths in the letter to the Colossians, where Paul says 
that all of them, and exactly those mentioned in Hosea— 
weekly, lunar, annual—they are all nailed to the cross 
of Christ, and taken out of the way. That is the abro¬ 
gation. 

(21) Its Christian successor? 

Ans.—The first day of the week, or the Lord’s Day, 
not the hebdomadal seventh day of the week. 

(22) What is the argument for its successor? 

Ans.—It is both Scriptural and historical. Those of 
you who will read the last sermon in the author’s first 
volume of sermons will find my argument at length, but 
I will give the substance of it very rapidly. Jehovah says 
—Jehovah of the Old Testament—that He is Lord of the 
Sabbath; that the Sabbath was made for man, and not 
man for the Sabbath. The Sabbath was made for man 
as man and not for the Jew alone. The Sabbath given on 
Mt. Sinai was part of the national covenant with the Is¬ 
raelite nation, to one people, but long before Moses was 
the Sabbath of the creation and rest; not long before 
Sinai the manna fell; long before Abraham was called, the 
fall came. God gave man, the first man, a “ sabbaton ”; 
the seventh day commemorated that; the seventh day com¬ 
memorated the manna; the seventh day commemorated 
the deliverance from Egypt. Now Jesus is the Lord of 
the Sabbath. He does not change the Sabbath; but He 
changes the day of the Sabbath, which is substantially: 


190 


EXODUS 


[xx 

Jesus is the antitype. Joshua was to give them rest; 
Joshua did not give them rest. Jesus gives them the rest. 
God created the world; the seventh-day Sabbath commem¬ 
orated that. Jesus redeemed the world; the first day of 
the week commemorates that. As we learn from Hebrews 
iv, Jesus also rested from His work, as God did from His. 
Therefore there remaineth a keeping of the Sabbath to the 
child of God. Secondly, when Jesus had abrogated, 
nailed to His cross, the Mosaic Sabbath, and rested, 
from that day instantly they began to observe another 
day. Five times we read that “ on the first day of the 
week ” He appeared to His disciples and in all of these 
to at least seventy people; on that day the Spirit came; 
on that day the disciples assembled to break bread, to 
pray, to keep the Lord’s Supper, as you learn from Acts 
ii; on that day, according to the habit and custom of 
the churches, Paul gave commandment that collections 
should be taken; on that day, in banishment on the 
Lord’s day, John was in the Spirit. The citations from 
history you will find in that volume of sermons. 

(23) Its enemies to-day? 

Ans.—The enemies to-day are indeed very formidable; 
they have allied themselves with so many things that are 
good. It is a good thing to have a stock show, a Fair, 
but it is bad to have an open door on Sunday and things 
exhibited that are indecent to the eye and to the moral 
life, as horse racing and gambling. Such are the oppo¬ 
sitions. I have not time to go into the discussion of the 
battles with these enemies. 

(24) What is its final antitype? 

Ans.—Let us labour to enter into that rest, not the 
promised land on earth with its metes and boundaries, 
but the Promised Land in heaven, where is no war and 
all is rest forever. 


xx] THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT 191 

“ Oh land of rest, for thee I sigh, 

When will the moment come 
When I shall lay my armour by, 

And rest with Christ at home?” 

ADDED QUESTIONS 

1. Is it right for a man living five miles out of town 
to drive to church on Sunday with a horse used all the 
week? 

Ans.—We must consider two things: (a) Man greater 
than the beast; man must go to church. Can he and his 
family walk ten miles, or five and back, regularly ? Some 
would have to stay at home, (b) I have never read of a 
horse dying while taking a family to church. They 
generally carry feed, tie him to a shady tree, water him, 
and drive him slowly back. 

2. You might have brought a question harder than 
this, viz.: The railroad matter. It is a law to excuse 
railroad employees or clerks working in the postoffice 
on Sunday. But I would not, as a Christian, enter any 
business that left me no Sunday privileges, no alterna¬ 
tion. Employers regarding their fellowmen should have 
done on Sunday only such work as concerns public neces¬ 
sity. 


XVII 


THE DECALOGUE—THE FIFTH 
COMMANDMENT 

Exodus XX, 12; Deuteronomy V, 16 

E XODUS XX, 12: “ Honour thy father and thy 
mother, that thy days may be long in the land 
which Jehovah thy God giveth thee.” 

1. In what way is the fifth commandment distinguished 
from the others? 

Ans.—In two particulars: (i) It is the connecting 
link between the commandments Godward and the com¬ 
mandments manward. It links the two tables, and (2) 
in the two parts it is the first commandment with a 
promise. 

2. How does it connect with the Godward command¬ 
ments ? 

Ans.—In a sense, the parent is in the place of God to 
the child, and God's fatherhood is the archetype of all 
families, as you find it expressed in Ephesians: “ For 

this cause I bow my knees unto the Father, from whom 
every family is named” (Ephesians iii, 14, 15). 

3. How did the ancient Romans express the idea of 
this connection of the fifth commandment? 

Ans.—They used one word to describe the dutifulness 
toward God and toward man, and that is the word, 
“ pietus ” or piety. Hence Virgil, in describing the 
reverence that iEneas pays to his father, Anchises, calls 

192 


193 


xx ] THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT 

him “ pious .Eneas.” In other words, it is impious to 
disobey a commandment that relates to God. It is im¬ 
pious to disobey a commandment that relates to the 
parents, but, while it is wicked, it is not impious to kill, 
to steal, to lie. It is important for you to notice that 
distinction, viz.: That the violation of any of the subse¬ 
quent commandments is wickedness; it is sin, but a 
violation of the four commandments relating to God and 
the one commandment relating to the parent is impious. 
Duty to parents and duty to God is therefore called 
piety. 

4. In what New Testament passage does our English 
Version express the same thought? 

Ans.—I Timothy v, 4: “ But if any widow hath chil¬ 
dren or grandchildren, let them learn first to shew piety 
towards their own family and to requite their parents; 
for this is acceptable in the sight of God.” Our English 
translators had the thought: that sin against parents is 
impiety. 

5. What masterpieces of tragedy are based on the 
impiety of children? 

Ans.—Shakespeare’s “ King Lear,” and the Greek 
“ Orestes ” and “ CEdipus.” We have thus seen how the 
fifth commandment connects with those that relate to 
God. 

6. How does the fifth commandment connect with the 
following ones that relate to man? 

Ans.—As the parent is in the place of God to the child, 
so society, the school and the state are in the place of 
the parent to the student and the city. 

7. What title is given to an institution of learning 
which expresses this thought? 

Ans.—Alma Mater. 

8 . What name is given to rulers? 


194 


EXODUS 


[xx 

Ans.—“Sire,” “ Father”; the Indian will tell you of 
the White Father at Washington City. And the Yankees 
used to sing: 

“ We are coming, Father Abraham! ” 

9. What, then, are the duties of children to parents? 

Ans.—They may be summed up in three heads: (1) 

Honour; (2) Obedience; (3) To care for them in their 
necessity. 

10. —In what ways do children in modern times violate 
this law? 

Ans.—Suppose a child calls his father “ the old man ” 
or “ the governor/’ or any appellation of that kind; that 
shows lack of honour. If a child by his speech so answers 
back that it is irreverent and disrespectful, it violates this 
command. If a child disregards an injunction solemnly 
laid upon him by a parent, that is a violation of this 
command. How often is that done in modern times, 
and to a degree never dreamed of in the olden times! 
Now the child wonders how much more he knows than 
his “ daddy.” It is an amazing thing to him how much 
smarter he is and how much better he can manage 
things. 

11. What remarkable lesson of our Lord exposes a 
hypocritical evasion of the law that a child should care 
for a necessitous parent? 

Ans.—The account is in Matthew xv, 36, also in Mark. 
He said to the Pharisees, “You make void the law of 
God with your tradition; you say with reference to any 
part of your property, Corban, that is, it is devoted to 
God, and therefore we can’t help take care of our father 
or mother because we can’t use devoted money for that.” 
He said it was a hypocritical evasion of an opportunity 


xx] THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT 195 

that couldn’t be alienated; that the child must take care 
of his necessitous perent. This commandment is ex¬ 
pressed somewhat as if it were absolute: “ Children, 

obey your parents in all things.” 

12. What is the limitation of this law? Is it abso¬ 
lute? or has it limitations? For example, if a parent 
should command a child to steal, does the law, “ Chil¬ 
dren, obey your parents,” require that child to steal? 
Then what is the limitation? 

Ans.—Paul puts it in these words: “ Children, obey 
your parents in the Lord ”; that is, obey your parents 
in everything that comes in the sphere of a parent; not 
within the sphere of God. God’s law is paramount and 
you can’t, under the idea of obedience to a parent, violate 
a law of God. 

13. What are the duties of parents to children? 

Ans.—They are to love them, to nurture them, that is, 
care for them physically, mentally and spiritually. They 
are to instruct them in matters of religion, and they 
are to discipline them when they disobey. No matter 
how high is the sanctity of a parental law, the law of a 
parent over a child, it never justifies the parent in over¬ 
looking the individuality of the child. For example, 
“ Parents, provoke not your children to wrath.” Don’t 
forget that they are individual creatures; that they are 
sensitive. I have known parents to shatter the last 
remnant of reverence that a child had for the parents by 
mocking the child, by disregarding the feelings of the 
child, when it was utterly unnecessary. 

14. In what way do many modern parents evade this 
law? 

Ans.—(1) By race suicide. That is particularly so in 
the case of the “ Four Hundred,” the wealthy, the great. 
They want to shun entirely the responsibility of parent- 


196 


EXODUS 


[xx 

age. In the next place (2) a mother violates it when 
she is so swallowed up with the cares of society that she 
neglects her own children and leaves their care and their 
training to irresponsible persons, servants. According 
to my interpretation of a passage from Paul where he is 
contrasting the sphere of man and woman, he says that 
the man’s sphere is a public sphere and he must live his 
life there. Then over against that he says, “ But the 
woman shall live in her children, if they continue stead¬ 
fast in faith and sobriety and in good works.” She lives 
her life reflexively in her children. We have an illustra¬ 
tion of that in an incident of Roman history, where a 
fashionable woman flashing with jewels came to exhibit 
her finery to a dignified Roman matron, Cornelia, and Cor¬ 
nelia sent for her two boys, the Gracchi, and holding one 
in each arm, she said, “ These are my jewels; I shine in 
these boys; I live in my children.” Parents evade this 
law in devolving upon some other agency the moral 
teaching of the child. For instance, “ I will turn it over 
to the Sunday School,” or, “ I will turn it over to the 
preacher.” Recently my wife gently took hold of me 
and said, “ I wish that you, more than anybody in the 
world, would in your own way take our little boy and 
teach him the Ten Commandments, so he will never 
forget them.” I accepted the suggestion and the implied 
rebuke, whether she meant it or not. It is a matter that 
we cannot with impunity devolve upon other people. 

15. Cite examples of the effect of this law both ways 
on nations. 

Ans.—I could cite a good many, but I take two great 
nations that lie side by side, Germany and France. In 
Germany the family is honoured. There is no race 
suicide. They count “ children an heritage from the 
Lord; as arrows of the Almighty, and blessed is the 


xx] THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT 197 

man that hath his quiver full of them.” They count the 
home a great place. In France, there is race suicide. 
Fewer children are born in France than in any other na¬ 
tion. Less home life; they want to live on the boulevards, 
in the parks, in the restaurants. They want to devolve 
upon the state the care of the child. They are perishing, 
while Germany is taking the world. Bonaparte saw that 
in his time, and when Madame De Stael said to him, 
“Who is the greatest woman in France?” he replied, 
“ Madam, the one who raises the most soldiers for the 
French army.” She thought he would say, “ You are.” 
But he saw what was the matter and that France was 
going to perish for the lack of men, while there would 
be in some German regiments ten and eleven brothers in 
the same company. 

16. Who is the most illustrious example of parents 
keeping this law? 

Ans.—In Genesis xviii, 19, we have an account of 
which God is the witness Himself, saying, “ Abraham 
shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all 
the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him; for I 
know him, that he will command his children and his 
household after him that they shall keep the way of the 
Lord to do justice and judgment.” Abraham’s attitude 
toward the family is the most striking and the most 
illustrious in the Old Testament. 

17. What is the most noted example in the Old Testa¬ 
ment of a parent disobeying this law? 

Ans.—I Samuel iii, 11-14: “And the Lord said to 
Samuel, Behold, I will do a thing in Israel at which both 
the ears of. every one that heareth shall tingle. In that 
day I will perform against Eli a thing which I have 
spoken concerning his house: when I begin I will also 
make an end. For I have told him that I will judge his 


198 


EXODUS 


[xx 

house for ever for the iniquity which he knoweth; because 
his sons made themselves vile, and he restrained them 
not. And therefore I have sworn unto the house of 
Eli, that the iniquity of Eli’s house shall not be purged 
with sacrifice nor offering for ever.” 

18. Cite the New Testament passage showing the most 
illustrious example of obedience to this fifth command¬ 
ment. 

Ans.—Luke ii, 31: Our Lord, though in His divinity 
the Son of God, perfectly obeyed the fifth commandment 
in that He was subjected to His parents. 

19. Show the bearing of this law on a high New 
Testament office. 

Ans.—I Timothy iii, 4: A bishop must be “one that 
ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjec¬ 
tion with all gravity.” I heard a preacher once on his 
examination for ordination say, putting his finger on 
that scripture, “ That is the only qualification I can 
claim. My children do obey me, and I do keep them in 
subjection to God’s law and I do teach them God’s 
Word.” 

20. What is the promise of this commandment? 

Ans.—“ That you may live long in the land,” or long 
life on earth. That obedience to parents—and this is a 
tremendous proposition—obedience to parents, is life pre¬ 
serving. It gives life. I mean natural life here in this 
world. 

21. Cite a proverb illustrating this. 

Ans.—Proverbs vi, 20-22. Notice and see the effect of 
obedience to parents on the life in the fulfilment of this 
promise: “ My son, keep the commandment of thy 

father, and forsake not the law of thy mother; bind them 
continually upon thy heart; tie them about thy neck. 
When thou walkest, it shall lead thee; when thou sleep- 


xx] THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT 199 

est, it shall watch over thee; and when thou wakest, it 
shall talk with thee.” 

22. What the most remarkable Old Testament ex¬ 
ample of the fulfilment of this promise, and what about 
this example to-day? 

Ans.—Jeremiah xxxv, 18, 19: “ And Jeremiah said 
unto the house of the Rechabites, Thus saith Jehovah of 
hosts, the God of Israel: Because ye have obeyed the 
commandment of Jonadab your father and kept all his 
precepts, and done according unto all that he hath com¬ 
manded you; therefore thus saith Jehovah of hosts, the 
God of Israel: Jonadab the son of Rechab shall not want 
a man to stand before me for ever.” 

What about the last part of this promise? In Geikie’s 
“ Hours with the Bible,” he cites a testimony from a 
traveller who in 1862 found a tribe of these Rechabites 
near the Dead Sea still living and flourishing, just as 
Jeremiah describes them. It shows the power of obedi¬ 
ence to this law of life. 

23. Cite a proverb showing that this law may be 
violated by a look or gesture. 

Ans.—Proverb xxx, 17: “The eye that mocketh at 
his father and despiseth to obey his mother, the ravens 
of the valley shall pick it out, and the young eagles shall 
eat it.” You see that child minded, but mocked. He 
obeyed with his body, but looked disobedient. 

24. Relate the incident connecting Dr. Adam Clarke, 
the great commentator, with that proverb. 

Ans.—Here is the substance of it: “ My mother was a 
Scotchwoman and very stern in the teaching of God’s 
law to her children, and in the enforcement of that law 
in the family life, and we were reared under it. One 
day she told me to do a certain thing, and I didn’t dare 
to disobey her, but I looked saucy at her, and she stood 


200 


EXODUS 


[xx 

over me and shook her finger in my face and quoted 
that proverb. It went through me like a dagger, and the 
next day I was out in the woods and a raven lit in the 
tree just above me, holloing ‘ Caw, caw, caw! ’—I threw 
my hands over my eyes and ran all the way home, crying, 
' Oh, my eyes! my eyes! my eyes! ’ ” 

25. Cite a Mosaic elaboration of this law binding par¬ 
ents to give this religious instruction to their children. 

Ans.—Deuteronomy vi, 7-9, has an elaboration of this 
commandment; that the parents shall teach all of this 
law to the children when they shall wake up and when 
they shall walk out of the gate. It shall pervade the 
home life, and then walk; it goes on to say that this 
law shall be inscribed over the doors and windows and 
gates, so that when the boy looks around the last thing at 
night, he reads, “ Honour thy father and thy mother.” 
When he steps out of his bedroom, he steps under the 
inscription, “ Honour thy father and thy mother.” When 
going through the gate he sees, “ Honour thy father and 
thy mother.” 

26. What people now living show the most reverence 
to parents ? 

Ans.—The Jews, Chinese, Japanese and Germans. In 
a recent magazine is an article by a cultivated young Jap 
who has travelled in the United States and was very 
much impressed with many things he saw over here that 
he thought his people could copy with profit; but, says he, 
“ I saw some things in which the American people should 
learn of us. I saw a Japanese boy on a train listening to 
an American mother and her son, and the mother said 
to the son, ‘ Son, go yonder and bring me a drink of 
water/ to which the son replied, 4 1 won’t do it/ That 
little Jap jumped as if a dynamite bomb had exploded 
under him. It appalled him; he had never seen anything 


xx] THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT 201 

like it. You might cross Japan from every direction of 
the compass and you would never see anything that 
would approach that, where a child would say to his 
parent ‘ I won’t do it.’ ” 

27. What denomination best obeys the law in the 
religious instruction of children? 

Ans.—The Presbyterians excel the Baptists, I am 
sorry to say. My mother was a Presbyterian. They 
make mighty good Baptists when you get them to come 
over. I learned the Presbyterian idea of family instruc¬ 
tion from my mother. 

28. What great Texas preacher preached on family 
government all over Texas? 

Ans.—Dr. Rufus C. Burleson. He was so much im¬ 
pressed with the importance of family religion, family 
discipline, family instruction in religious matters and its 
bearing on the destinies of society and the state, that he 
preached that sermon, I suppose, 500 times in different 
parts of Texas, taking old Eli for a text. 

29. Cite the most exquisite poem in literature on 
family religion. 

Ans.—Robert Burns’ “ Cotter’s Saturday Night.” 

30. What does Dr. Gambrell say about the value of 
that poem? 

Ans.—“ ‘ The Cotter’s Saturday Night ’ is worth more 
than all the higher critic literature that was ever written,” 
and when he said it I felt like going up and shaking his 
hand. Oftentimes at night I have gotten that poem out 
and read it again and again. It touches the heart, it 
gets inside of all the experiences with which we make 
ourselves, and behind which we intrench ourselves. It 
deals with lowly people, people next to the ground, and 
yet it deals with the very heart of religion. I have 
wanted Dr. Gambrell to make that poem the subject of a 


202 


EXODUS 


[xx 

lecture in order to fix on the minds of our young people 
the kind of literature in which the real gems are to be 
found. 

31. Show how disobedience to this law makes bad citi¬ 
zens and so undermines the state. 

Ans.—The answer can be found in your town, in the 
country, in the state. It can be found in every page of 
history, that the boy who disregards father and mother 
can’t make a good citizen. Absalom, the rebel against 
parental authority, was also the rebel against civil au¬ 
thority. Take the “ street arab,” the one that mocks at 
the idea of parental and family government—what re¬ 
spect will he have for the sheriff, or the judge, or the 
governor, or the President? In other words, it is from 
the family as the centre that all society and civil law 
radiates, and if you strike that down, there is not any¬ 
thing upon which to build the superstructure of a perma- 
ment government. It must start from the home. It is 
the sweet reminiscences of home that safeguard the boy 
in all his after life. The first time I ever saw Wood¬ 
worth’s poem it captured me: 

“ How dear to my heart are the scenes of my childhood, 
When fond recollection presents them to view— 

The orchard, the meadow, the deep tangled wildwood, 

And every loved spot which my infancy knew.” 

How those scenes come up later in life, and what a 
preserving power they have over us! Go back to the time 
when we were little; there are the sacred names: Father, 
Mother, Sister, Brother, Uncle, Aunt, Cousin, and woe to 
the lad, or pity to the lad, that never knew them, that 
never had those surroundings. Much to his credit is it 
that without those surroundings he learns to fear God 
and takes a man’s place among men 


XVIII 


THE DECALOGUE—THE SIXTH 
COMMANDMENT 

Exodus XX, 13; Deuteronomy V, ij 


W HO was the first murderer? 

Ans.—The devil. So John in viii, 44, says, 
“ He was a murderer from the beginning.” 

2. Which the first murder? 

Ans.—In Genesis iv, 8-15, Cain, under the promptings 
of Satan, killed his brother Abel. 

3. Which was the first penal law against murder? 
Ans.—I will quote it for you; it preceded this law we 
are on now: “ And surely your blood, the blood of your 
lives, will I require; at the hand of every beast will I 
require it; and at the hand of man, even at the hand 
of every man’s brother, will I require the life of man. 
Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be 
shed; for in the image of God made he man” (Genesis 
ix, 5, 6). This is the Noachian law given to Noah when 
he was the second representative head of the human 
race, after the flood, and particularly do you need to 
know the reason assigned: “ For in the image of God 

made he man.” Therein is the heinousness of murder, 
viz.: that man was made in the image of God. 

4. Now repeat this commandment. 

Ans.—“ Thou shalt not kill.” I stated in the preceding 
chapter that the great covenant adopted at Sinai was set 

203 


204 


EXODUS 


[xx 

forth in the book of Exodus, from the nineteenth to the 
end of the twenty-third chapter, and that that covenant 
consisted of three parts: (i) This moral code which we 
are discussing; (2) The civil code arising from it; (3) 
The law of approach to God through the altar. 

5. As that whole covenant from Exodus xix to xxiv 
is the constitution, what special Mosaic statutes were 
derived from this commandment? 

Ans.—(1) We will take up the case of homicide, which 
means the killing of a man (from “homo,” man, and 
“ csedis ” or “ csedo,” to kill). The first Mosaic legisla¬ 
tion concerning homicide, which is murder, has the death 
penalty. I want you to look at the special legislation on 
that subject. You will find this law with the death 
penalty assessed clearly stated in the following scrip¬ 
tures: Exodus xxi, 12, 14; Leviticus xxiv, 17; Numbers 
xxxv, 30-33; Deuteronomy xxvii, 24. Now, Moses de¬ 
veloped special statutes out of this constitution, and every 
one of these statutes which I have recited you are to 
read carefully, and you will see that in any of the cases 
specified, this homicide is murder, with the penalty of 
death. (2) The next special legislation on the subject is 
found in Numbers xxxv, 16-21, and it is homicide where 
malice is presumed because of the deadly weapon used. 
Let us turn and read it, for I want you to get this Mosaic 
legislation clearly in your mind, for all of our laws by 
which we go in our courts to-day are derived from this 
law. There is not a single principle of law, as attached 
to murder, in the government of any civilized country 
that is not derivable from the Mosaic law: “ But if he 
smote him with an instrument of iron, so that he died, 
he is a murderer.” Now, if you were to hit a man with 
a straw and it were to kill him, you could not prove 
malice, because the thing with which you struck was not 


205 


xx] THE SIXTH COMMANDMENT 

calculated to kill. Here is where the weapon comes in 
and helps to determine murder, and you will hear the 
lawyers pleading that in all the murder cases that come 
up. “ The murderer shall surely be put to death. And 
if he smote him with a stone in the hand, whereby a man 
may die, and he died, he is a murderer; the murderer 
shall surely be put to death. Or if he smote him with a 
weapon of wood in the hand, whereby a man may die, 
and he died, he is a murderer; the murderer shall surely 
be put to death.” Suppose I kill one with a cane, (and I 
have one with which one could kill a man) it would be 
murder. “ And if he thrust him of hatred, or hurled at 
him, lying in wait, so that he died, or in enmity smote 
him with his hand, so that he died; he that smote him 
shall surely be put to death; he is a murderer.” So you 
see the idea of murder there is that this man, even though 
he has not a weapon, lying in wait, he deliberately got his 
victim, having come along and anticipated it. Suppose 
he just leaps out and grasps him by the throat and chokes 
him to death ? The law declares that murder on account 
of its malice; it was murder permitted by hatred, on ac¬ 
count of its deliberation as he lay in wait for him. (3) 
The next case is found in Deuteronomy xxvii, 25: 
“ Cursed be he that taketh a bribe to slay an innocent 
person.” The first thing here is not personal animosity 
against the one killed, but the murderer accepting a bribe 
to kill him. He kills him for money; it is assassination 
for bribery; that is murder. It would be no defence for 
him to go up and say, “ I have no sort of enmity against 
that man; I never saw him in my life before.” But 
inasmuch as he took money as the price of killing, it is 
murder. (4) The next case is homicide that results from 
false testimony, Deuteronomy xix, 16-19. Here’s a 
man accused before the courts with an offence, and 


206 


EXODUS 


[xx 

the witness through whose testimony he was accused 
lost his life because of perjury; then that witness, though 
he did not actually do the killing, committed murder, and 
the Mosaic law says you must do to that witness, when 
you have proof of his perjury, what his testimony had 
done to the other man. If through false evidence he had 
a man hanged, why then you hang him, because that is 
murder. (5) The next is a case of homicide resulting 
from criminal neglect, and the first case (a) I take up 
under that charge is cited in Exodus xxi, 29, right after 
the giving of this code. Now here is a special statute 
that applies to that code: that if a man is gored to death 
by a vicious ox or a bull, and there is evidence that the 
owner of that ox had been notified of the vicious charac¬ 
ter of that animal and did not keep him in, and through 
the running of it at large this man was killed, then the 
owner of that ox should be put to death. That is crim¬ 
inal negligence, not safeguarding the life of others. If a 
little girl was going to school, and a man kept a blood¬ 
hound, a ferocious animal, and he should leap the fence 
and tear the throat of that little girl till she died, that 
man could be hanged under the Mosaic law; it was a 
criminal neglect, (b) The next case of criminal neglect 
cited is Deuteronomy xxii, 8. When a man built a new 
house (you know the houses in that country were all flat 
on top) if the man did not erect battlements to protect 
anybody that might walk on the roof, or if children play¬ 
ing thoughtlessly got too close to the edge, fell off, and 
killed themselves, that man who did not put up battle¬ 
ments was guilty of murder; it was a criminal neglect, 
(c) The third case of criminal neglect is Exodus xxi, 22, 
23: If two men get to fighting in a house where people 
are, or on the street, and as a result of their fighting an 
innocent by-stander is killed, they are guilty of murder, 


207 


xx] THE SIXTH COMMANDMENT 

because that was not the place to fight. Whoever fights 
in a public place where the people have a right to be, and 
though he shoots at his enemy, misses him and kills some¬ 
body that he did not aim at at all, he is guilty of murder. 
It wasn’t the place to shoot, (d) The next case is that 
of a man punishing a slave, and while the weapon he uses 
is not called a deadly weapon, yet if he makes that 
punishment so extreme that the slave dies under the pun¬ 
ishment, he is a murderer; and he could be put to death; 
but in order for him to be guilty of murder, the slave 
must die under the punishment. He might wound him so 
that he did not die for a week or two, then the law would 
not apply. But if he dies under the punishment, it is 
murder. (6) The next law is expressed in Deuteronomy 
xxi, i. I had better quote that to you, as some of you 
prohibitionists, if you do as I used to do, will make a 
great deal of it: “ If one be found slain in the land which 
Jehovah God giveth thee to possess it, lying in the 
field, and it be not known who hath smitten him; then 
thy elders and thy judges shall come forth, and they 
shall measure unto the cities that are around about him 
that is slain; and it shall be, that the city which is nearest 
unto the slain man, even the elders of that city shall take 
a heifer of the herd, which hath not been wrought with, 
and which hath not drawn in the yoke . . . And all 

the elders of that city shall wash their hands over the 
heifer whose neck was broken in the valley; and they 
shall answer and say, Our hands have not shed this blood, 
neither have our eyes seen it. Forgive, O Jehovah, thy 
people Israel, whom thou hast redeemed, and suffer not 
innocent blood to remain in the midst of thy people 
Israel. And the blood shall be forgiven them. So shalt 
thou put away the innocent blood from the midst of thee, 
when thou shalt do that which is right in the eyes of 


208 EXODUS [xx 

Jehovah.” So that those elders who had washed their 
hands over the slain heifer and in the name of God who 
had just been evoked by the sacrifice, they must swear 
that no neglect upon their part occasioned the death of 
that man. That is called municipal responsibility. Now, 
when that sheriff was killed in Fort Worth by that saloon 
keeper, simply because the sheriff was discharging his 
duty, I wrote an article holding the city of Fort Worth 
responsible for that murder. They were tolerating the 
death-gendering business, also associated with murder, 
and through their licensing those saloons, and through 
their failure to enforce the law against these saloons that 
this murder came by, the municipality was guilty in the 
sight of God. (7) The special Mosaic legislation, under 
the head, “ Thou shalt not kill,” is all embodied in what 
is called “lex talionis.” You will not forget that: “lex 
talionis,” law of retaliation, and that “ lex talionis ” is set 
forth in the scripture, Exodus xxi, 23-25. Let us read 
that and see what it is: “ But if any harm follow, then 
thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, 
hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound 
for wound, stripe for stripe,” that is, every man under 
the law, “ Thou shalt not kill,” is to be held responsible 
for the amount of damage which he inflicts, whether it 
kills or not. If he knocks out a man’s eye, then eye for 
eye, and tooth for tooth, one of his must now be taken 
out; if he cuts off a man’s nose, then off comes his; if he 
breaks three or four teeth, then the same number of his 
shall be broken; “ eye for eye, tooth for tooth, burning 
for burning.” If he picks up boiling hot water and 
throws it over him, then he must be scalded. Let us see 
how that law is applied in Leviticus xxiv, 19-21: “ And 
if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath 
done, so shall it be done to him: breach for breach, eye for 


209 


xx] THE SIXTH COMMANDMENT 

eye, tooth for tooth; as he hath caused a blemish in a man, 
so shall it be rendered unto him. And he that killeth 
a beast shall make it good; and he that killeth a man 
shall be put to death.” And now let us look at the “ lex 
talionis ” in Deuteronomy xix, 18-21: “ And the judges 
shall make diligent inquisition; and, behold, if the witness 
be a false witness, and have testified falsely against his 
brother; then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to 
do unto his brother . . . And thine eyes shall not pity; 
life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand 
for hand, foot for foot.” That is “ lex talionis.” Now, 
so far we have considered the case of homicide where it 
was adjudged to be murder, and the penalty was death. 
We will now consider (1) accidental homicide. Deuter¬ 
onomy xix, 4-6: “ And this is the case of the manslayer, 
that shall flee thither and live: whoso killeth his neighbour 
unawares, and hateth him not in times past; as when a 
man goeth into the forest with his neighbour to hew 
wood, and his hand fetcheth a stroke with the axe to cut 
down the tree, and the head slippeth from the helve, and 
lighteth upon his neighbour, so that he dieth; he shall flee 
unto one of these cities and live; lest the avenger of 
blood pursue the manslayer, while his heart is hot, and 
overtake him, because the way is long, and smite him 
mortally; whereas he was not worthy of death, inasmuch 
as he hated him not in times past.” Now, he killed him 
but there was no hatred toward him and no intention to 
kill him. It was a pure accident; that is not murder. I 
take a still stronger case, however, presented in Numbers 
xxxv, 22, 23: “ But if he thrust him suddenly without 
enmity, or hurled upon him anything without lying in 
wait, or with any stone, whereby a man may die, seeing 
him not, and cast it upon him, so that he died, and he was 
not his enemy, neither sought his harm, then that is not 


EXODUS 


210 



murder, for the congregation delivered the manslayer 
out of the hand of the avenger of blood . . . and 

restored him to his city of refuge whither he had fled.” 
There you come upon both suddenly, and it would be such 
if I were working on the top of a three-story house 
and pushed off the coping and it fell on somebody and 
killed him, I not seeing him, yet there being a sign up 
all around that there was danger on that building. But 
there was something here more than that. It says, 
“ If a man suddenly thrust.” Now that is not an acci¬ 
dent ; it is this kind of a case: if the killing is brought 
upon you when you are not expecting it and the whole 
issue of it is thrust upon you without any premeditation 
on your part, and in the heat of the moment, you, in 
defence, lay hold on anything you can get your hand on, 
when they are crowding you, and you thrust suddenly 
and kill a man, that is not murder. Why? There was 
no malice, and there was no deliberation. It all came 
upon you in a moment, and you find that principle recog¬ 
nized in every law court in the United States. A ques¬ 
tion comes up: “ Was the ‘ lex talionis ’ to be enforced 
individually or through the courts ? ” I will explain 
that directly, we will come to it again, a strange kind of 
court, a part of it, yet it was a court. 

6. Now give the Mosaic definition of murder, the 
process of court procedure in determining it to be 
murder, and its penalty. 

Ans.—Here’s my answer: (i) Homicide with delib¬ 
eration and enmity is always murder; (2) The use of a 
deadly weapon in smiting implies malice and intent to kill 
and is murder; (3) Taking a bribe to kill, though with¬ 
out personal malice, is murder; (4) Homicide resulting 
from perjury, without personal malice, is murder; (5) 
Extreme punishment of the slave, though one did not 


THE SIXTH COMMANDMENT 


211 


xx] 

mean to murder when he commenced punishing him, yet 
if he persisted until the slave dies under that punishment, 
it is murder; (6) Homicide resulting from criminal 
negligence, as in the case of an ox, or of the battlement; 
(7) In the case of a fight on the streets or in the house 
where the public have a right to be; (8) As in the case of 
the municipality in not safeguarding the lives of the citi¬ 
zens, or in not enforcing the law which does safeguard 
these, all are murder, criminal and otherwise at special 
courts; and (Deuteronomy xix, 15-19) every man (a) 
was entitled to a trial, (b) and no man could be convicted 
of any offence, and especially in that of murder, by one 
witness; there must be two witnesses, one would not do; 
(c) no bail could be given, and (d) no fine allowed in a 
murder case, (e) and a false witness was himself to be 
put to death. (I will explain another feature of the court 
at the end of the chapter.) Now continuing the Mosaic 
definition: (9) Accidental (Deuteronomy xix, 4-6) 

homicide in self-defence is not murder; (10) Sudden 
homicide in self-defence is not murder (Numbers xxxv) ; 
(11) When a thief in the act of burglary is killed, that is 
not murder; (12) but if you wait to kill him till the 
next day, then it is murder; (13) War is not murder; 
killing in war is not murder. Now I have given you the 
Mosaic law for murder. 

7. What was our Lord’s exposition on this sixth com¬ 
mandment? 

Ans.—It is in Matthew v, 21, 22, in the great Sermon 
on the Mount: "Ye have heard that it was said to them 
of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill 
shall be in danger of the judgment; but I say unto you, 
that every one who is angry with his brother shall be in 
danger of the judgment; and whosoever shall say to 
his brother, Raca [an expression of contempt], shall be 


212 


EXODUS 


[xx 

in danger of the council [the Sanhedrin]; and whoso¬ 
ever shall say, Thou fool [an expression of condemna¬ 
tion], shall be in danger of the Gehenna of fire.” There 
you see our Lord goes down to the root of the matter, 
and He puts the murder not in the overt act, but in the 
angry passion, or hate, that prompts the act, and that 
passion or hate may be expressed in a word. You may 
kill with the word, Raca, Fool, a worthless fellow; so 
that our Lord does not take back the Mosaic law, but 
He gives the spirit of it; He goes deeper than the words 
of the law; and He shows that the murder is not only in 
the overt act, but in the state of the mind which prompts 
to kill or to call a man curse-words, as Raca, Fool, or 
whatever you please. 

8. Now give our Lord’s exposition of the “ lex tali- 

• 11 
oms. 

Ans.—In Matthew v, 38, 39, we have this: “Ye have 
heard that it was said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth 
for a tooth [He does not take that back: He goes far 
beyond that] : But I say unto you, Resist not him that is 
evil; but whosoever smiteth thee on thy right cheek, 
turn to him the other also.” That is, the Christian man 
is not allowed to be executor of the “ lax talionis ”; he 
is not judge, or sheriff. The law says, “ An eye for an 
eye, a tooth for a tooth,” and if a man has knocked your 
eye out, you are not to reach out your hand and knock 
his out; you are not the executor if he hits you on one 
side of the face. Rather than hit him back, you had 
better turn the other side and let him hit you again. God 
did not make you executor of the law. 

9. What is John’s exposition of murder? 

Ans.—I John iii, 15: “Whosoever hateth his brother 
is a murderer.” He may not shoot him; he may not be 


xx] THE SIXTH COMMANDMENT 213 

guilty of assassination, but if he hates him he has the 
spirit of a murderer. 

10. Now give our Lord’s exposition of the source of 
murder. 

Ans.—Now He goes deeper than He went before. 
There He put the murder in the passions; in Matthew 
xv, 19, He gives the source of it: “ For out of the 
heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, etc.” There 
you do not have to prove the murder to be of the sword 
or pistol, nor even by anger, whether it manifests itself 
or not in word or gesture, but the permanent state, the 
attitude of the inner self toward God; out of the heart 
it comes forth, and that is the source. 

11. Now give our Lord’s positive side of the command¬ 
ment, the negative side of it being, “ Thou shalt not 
kill.” 

Ans.—In Matthew v, 43, we find His positive side of it: 
“ Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt love thy 
neighbour and hate thine enemy; but I say unto you, 
Love your enemies, and pray for them that persecute you; 
that ye may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for 
he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and 
sendeth rain on the just and the unjust.” As murder is 
hate,—“ Thou shalt not hate ”—(that is the negative side) 
so, “ Thou shalt love ” is the positive of the command¬ 
ment. 

12. What is Paul’s positive side of it? 

Ans.—Romans xii, 19-21: “ Avenge not yourselves, 

beloved, but give place unto the wrath of God, for it is 
written, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, 
saith the Lord. But if thine enemy hunger, feed him; 
if he thirst, give him to drink; for in so doing thou shalt 
heap coals of fire upon his head. Be not overcome of 
evil, but overcome evil with good.” There you begin to 


214 


EXODUS 


[xx 

get at the idea that Christ is not speaking of the govern¬ 
mental execution of law. He is saying to the Christian 
people that they are not the executors of the law; and 
Paul says, “ You have been wronged, now you give place 
to the wrath of God; just get out of the way and let God 
hit him. ‘ Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord, I will re¬ 
pay,’ and so far as you are concerned, do not hit him. 
Love him and pray for him.” 

13. Does our Lord condemn all anger? If not, what 
is His law of anger? 

Ans.—As a proof that He does not condemn all anger, 
three or four times in His life He was Himself in¬ 
tensely indignant, and ought to have been, and we ought 
to have an anger and wrath against any and all evil 
things, but He says, “ Let not the sun go down on your 
wrath.” Now if they are wicked things they will make 
you mad, and that would not be sin, but if you took 
vengeance it would be sin, or if you nourished that, let the 
sun go down on that anger, it would breed something that 
would be sin, i.e., if you let it hang on long. 

14. Does Christ condemn killing by the state through 
the courts of justice? 

Ans.—He certainly does not. He is not discussing 
that subject at all; nobody could call Him out on these 
political questions. 

15. What, then, is the sum of His teaching on killing 
and private resistance? 

Ans.—The sum of His teaching is that as God sends 
His sunlight and His rain upon the evil and good alike, 
so we, to be the children of God, must love the good and 
the bad; must desire their good; must refuse to execute 
judgment on them by taking vengeance into our hands. 
That is the sum of His law. 


xx] THE SIXTH COMMANDMENT 215 

16. What is the sum of His teaching on courts and 
wars? 

Ans.—As I have told you, He avoided putting Himself 
in antagonism in any way to any form of government. 
He says in whatsoever condition you are to be content, 
and you are to obey the magistrates and observe the re¬ 
quirements issued for the good of society. But He 
teaches principles that will ultimately put an end to 
the necessity of the human courts and to all courts what¬ 
ever. One of the prophets says, “ He shall be the arbi¬ 
ter between nations.” He says to His own children, 
“ Do not go to law brother against brother.” We should 
either arbitrate or select any two or three good brethren 
in the church and let them decide; suffer wrong rather 
than go to law. He established the great principle of 
arbitration which appears in The Hague Commission and 
which has done a great deal of good and gives expression 
to the principle which He teaches, as the prophets de¬ 
clare : “ The lion and the lamb shall lie down together, 
and a little child shall lead them, and there shall be wars 
no more, and the swords shall be turned into plowshares 
and the spears into pruning hooks, and from one end of 
the earth to the other there shall be peace, and peace 
only.” He is to bring it about, not by political legisla¬ 
tion, but by inculcating the principles that will govern 
public opinion and will spread until a millennium of glory 
shall come in the power of His teachings. 

17. What is the nature of murder? 

Ans.—It has about a dozen elements: (1) Sacrilege, 
because you are killing somebody who was made in the 
image of God; that is sacrilege. (2) And again you are 
killing your brother; you are destroying a member of 
society, and the great reason for a legislation against 
murder is that the man is made in the image of God, etc. 


216 


EXODUS 


[xx 


18. Cite special cases of murder. 

Ans.—(i) Homicide, the killing of a man; (2) Sui¬ 
cide, the killing of self; (3) Parricide, the killing of 
one’s father; (4) Infanticide, the killing of infants; and 
feticide, the killing of unborn children. Every one of 
them is murder. 

19. Give the case of the negro judge. 

Ans.—In Reconstruction times some negroes got into 
office, and very near the edge of Arkansas, close to 
Texas, a negro became a judge, and one of the cases 
brought before him was that of a man who had killed 
another man and stolen his horse. When they brought 
him before the negro, he said: “ This court knows two 
kinds of justice; there is the Arkansas justice and there 
is the Texas justice. Well, now, which will you have? ” 
“ Well, if it is Texas justice you want, I set you free for 
killing the man—that is nothing in Texas, but I will hang 
you for stealing the horse.” “ Well, hold on,” the culprit 
said, “ give me Arkansas justice.” “ All right, I’ll set 
you free for stealing that horse, but I’ll hang you for 
killing that man.” 

20. What is the great reflection on our laws as they 
are administered? 

Ans.—That the courts will not condemn a man for 
murder; they just simply will not do it. They condemn 
to death for stealing, without ever failing, and for a 
great many other things, but you can come nearer killing 
a man with impunity than stealing a paper bag of pop¬ 
corn. 

21. What are the causes that lead to murder? 

Ans.—The love of money; as in the case of that man 
who killed by taking a bribe; as in the case of that man 
who swore falsely for money’s sake; as in the case of 
that saloon-keeper, who for the love of money kept and 


xx] THE SIXTH COMMANDMENT SIT 

sold the things that brought about murder. The love of 
money is one of the greatest causes of murder. 

22. Explain the avenger of blood and the Cities of 
Refuge. 

Ans.—The question was asked whether the “ lex tali- 
onis ” was vested in that individual or in the court of the 
cities of refuge. There were six of them, three east of 
the Jordan and three west; they were set there for this 
purpose: that when one killed a man, he could instantly 
flee to that city nearest, and if the avenger of blood over¬ 
took him before he got there, he perished; if he got there, 
he had a trial. If it was proved that he had maliciously 
killed him, then the city of refuge could not hold him, 
nobody could hold him, he must be given up, says Moses. 
But the object of those cities of refuge was to give 
time for passion to cool, to give time for a fair trial. 
Now what was the avenger of blood ? He was the closest 
of kin to the murdered man. That looks like putting 
it into the hands of the individual, but while it was in the 
hands of the individual, it was an individual commission 
of the law; the law commissioned him, as soon as his kins¬ 
man was killed, to strike right out for the murderer, 
and it was a hot race; if the murderer got to the city of 
refuge he was safe from the avenger of blood until the 
evidence could be brought there and the case tried, and 
if he had actually committed murder, then he must be 
publicly executed. If it was a case of accidental killing, 
or accidental homicide, they could not put him to death. 
Now we have no such thing as the avenger of blood, 
making the nearest of kin the avenger of blood, as the 
law of Moses did. But he was an officer of the law just 
as the sheriff is. The Mormons created a body called the 
Danites, a secret organization, and made them the aveng¬ 
ers of blood, until the whole United States was stirred 


218 


EXODUS 


[xx 

with the drama, “ The Danites,” repeating what they did 
in dramatic art. That drama, “ The Danites,” thrilled the 
whole United States, and the Danites had to go out of 
business. 

23. How about a missionary in a heathen country 
carrying a pistol? 

Ans.—If I had been out with Mr. Roosevelt in the 
wilds of Africa, I would have carried both gun and pis¬ 
tols. Wherever my life was in jeopardy by the necessity 
of my situation, I would carry them, but in a school or a 
church, or in the streets of a peaceful city, where there 
are officers of the law on all sides ready to protect— 
that is the kind of pistol carrying that is inexcusable. 


XIX 


THE DECALOGUE—THE SEVENT 
COMMANDMENT 


odus XX, 14; Deuteronomy V, 18 


w 


HAT is the Scriptural basis for the seventh 
commandment ? 


Ans.—The answer is Genesis i, 26: “God 
made them male and female,” and ii, 18-25, which de¬ 
scribes how the woman was formed from man, and, taken 
with the man, expresses their unity. Genesis ii, 3-8, 
restates the passage from the first chapter. Now the 
seventh commandment roots in this Genesis passage. 

2. What are the lessons of these scriptures? 

Ans.—These Old Testament passages furnish four 
great lessons: (1) The unity of the man and the woman: 
“ They twain shall be one flesh,” bone of bone and 
flesh of flesh. The Hebrew word for man is “ ish the 
Hebrew word for woman is “ isshah ” and means “ ess.” 
Just like you say peer and peeress, baron and baroness, 
marquis and marchioness; the feminine of man means 
“ derived from man.” Charles Wesley, the great Metho¬ 
dist hymn-writer, has used these words in a song: 

“ Not from his head the woman took, 

And made her husband to overlook; 

Not from his feet, as one designed 
The footstool of the stronger kind; 

But fashioned for himself a bride: 

A.n equal taken from his side.” 


219 


220 EXODUS [xx 

That is the first lesson in these scriptures, teaching the 
unity of the man and the woman. (2) Marriage is a 
divine institution. Genesis i, 27, ii, 22, and Matthew xix, 
6. God made them male and female. God made the 
woman out of a part of the man, and presented her to 
the man. Therefore “ what God hath joined together, let 
not man put asunder.” (3) Marriage is the first and 
the highest and the most important human relation, de¬ 
rived from this part of Genesis: “ therefore shall a man 
leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his 
wife” (Genesis ii, 24). Just as soon as the marriage 
relation is established, a new family is established; and 
that marriage obligation is paramount over every other 
human obligation, or every obligation based upon a 
human relation. A man is more under obligation to love 
and to take care of his wife than he is to stay at home 
and take care of his father and mother. A woman is 
under more obligation to love and to cherish her husband 
than she is to love and to cherish her own father and 
mother, or her own brothers and sisters. It is the first 
human relation, the highest human relation, the most im¬ 
portant human relation and it antedated even the Sabbath 
day. (4) The fourth lesson: Marriage typifies the cove¬ 
nant relation between God and Israel, Isaiah liv, 5: “ Thy 
Maker is thy husband ”; and also the covenant relation 
between Christ and His church. There are a number of 
passages on this: Romans v, 14; II Corinthians xi, 2; 
Ephesians v, 22-33; Revelation xix, 5-10. All these 
scriptures are devoted to that idea; all of them need 
special mention. In Romans v Paul shows that Adam the 
first was a type of Adam the Second; and as the woman 
was derived from Adam the first, so the church was 
derived from Adam the Second; that as the first Adam 
was in a deep sleep when God took the material of the 


xx] THE SEVENTH COMMANDMENT 221 

woman from his side, so the Second Adam must sleep in 
death, in order that the church might be extracted from 
His side. And the other passage, the most remarkable, is 
the one in Ephesians v. I think I had better quote a 
part of it to you, though you may be quite familiar 
with it. We want to get at the basis of this seventh 
commandment, v, 22: “ Wives, be in subjection unto 

your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is 
the head of the wife, as Christ is also the head of the 
church, being himself the saviour of the body. But as the 
church is subject to Christ, so let the wives also be to 
their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your 
wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave 
himself for it: that he might sanctify it, having cleansed 
it by the washing of water with the word, that he might 
present the church to himself a glorious church, not hav¬ 
ing spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that it should 
be holy and without blemish. Even so ought husbands 
also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He that 
loveth his own wife loveth himself; for no man ever hated 
his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as 
Christ also the church; because we are members of his 
body. For this cause shall a man leave his father and 
mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall 
become one flesh. This mystery is great: but I speak in 
regard of Christ and of the church. Nevertheless do ye 
also severally love each one his own wife even as himself; 
and let the wife see that she fear her husband.” 

Now, these are the four great lessons of the Genesis 
passage without the details: (1) The essential unity of 
man and woman; (2) Marriage is a divine institution; 
(3) Marriage is the first and highest and most important 
human relation; (4) Marriage typifies the covenant rela¬ 
tion between God and Israel, and the covenant relation 


EXODUS 


222 



between Christ and His church. I quote a closing pas¬ 
sage on the last (Revelation xix, 6) : “And I heard as 
it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice 
of many waters, and as of the voice of mighty thunders, 
saying, Hallelujah: for the Lord our God, the Almighty, 
reigneth. Let us rejoice and be exceeding glad, and let 
us give the glory unto him; for the marriage of the Lamb 
is come, and his wife hath made herself ready. And it 
was given unto her that she should array herself in fine 
linen, bright and pure: for the fine linen is the righteous 
acts of the saints. And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed 
are they that are bidden to the marriage supper of the 
Lamb.” 

Now having considered the basis of the command¬ 
ment, let us repeat the commandment: “ Thou shalt 
not commit adultery.” In other words, Thou shalt 
not be unfaithful to the marriage obligation (Exodus 
xx, 14). 

3. What is Christ’s exposition of this? 

Ans.—You see that, on the face of it, it looks as though 
it speaks only to married people. Thou shalt not be un¬ 
faithful to the marriage vows; it does look like a limita¬ 
tion. Now let us see how Christ expounds that in Mat¬ 
thew v, 27, 28, a part of His great Sermon on the Mount 
(that sermon is the exposition of the law): “Ye have 
heard that it was said, Thou shalt not commit adultery; 
but I say unto you, that every one that looketh on a 
woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her 
already in his heart.” Now Jesus is not supplementing 
the Mosaic law; He is simply fulfilling it, filling it out, 
showing the spirituality of it; and that it does not refer 
(1) simply to an overt act, and (2) that it does not refer 
simply to the marriage relation; but it refers to the pas¬ 
sion, whether it ever finds expression or not. 


xx] THE SEVENTH COMMANDMENT 223 

4. What is the source of all violation of this command¬ 
ment? 

Ans.—In Matthew xv, 19, Jesus says, “ For out of the 
heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, forni¬ 
cations, etc.” There the commandment strikes at the 
state: “ out of the heart,” “ whosoever looketh ”; there 
is a reference to the passion. “ Do not commit adultery ” 
—there it is an overt act. Now the law takes cognizance 
of the whole subject, not merely of the fruit of the tree, 
not of the flower from which the fruit is formed, not of 
the bough upon which the fruit grows, nor of the trunk 
from which the branch extends, but of the very root of 
the tree. That is the law. 

5. What was Moses’ law of divorce? 

Ans.—We have spoken of this relation. Now, Moses, 
who recorded this commandment we are studying, after¬ 
ward permitted divorces, and we want to see the law 
under which he permitted it. Deuteronomy xxiv, 1-4: 
“ When a man taketh a wife, and marrieth her, then it 
shall be, if she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath 
found some unseemly thing in her, that he shall write 
her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and 
send her out of his house. And when she is departed out 
of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife. 
And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of 
divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of 
his house; or if the latter husband die, who took her to be 
his wife; her former husband, who sent her away, may not 
take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for 
that is abomination before Jehovah; and thou shalt not 
cause the land to sin, which Jehovah thy God giveth thee 
for an inheritance.” So that if a man is divorced from a 
woman under this Mosaic law, she may marry somebody 
else, and that second man may divorce her, or that second 


EXODUS 


224 



man may die, but that first man must not marry her again. 
Now that is the Mosaic law of divorce. 

6. What is Christ’s law of divorce ? 

Ans.—It is found in Matthew xix, 3-10: “ The Phari¬ 
sees also came unto him, trying him, and saying, Is it law¬ 
ful for a man to put away his wife for every cause ? And 
he answered and said, Have ye not read, that he who 
made them from the beginning made them male and fe¬ 
male, and said, For this cause shall a man leave his father 
and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two 
shall become one flesh? So that they are no more two, 
but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, 
let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why then 
did Moses command to give a bill of divorcement, and to 
put her away ? He saith unto them, Moses for your hard¬ 
ness of heart suffered you to put away your wives; but 
from the beginning it hath not been so. And I say unto 
you, whosoever shall put away his wife, except for forni¬ 
cation, and shall marry another, committeth adultery; and 
he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth 
adultery. The disciples say unto him, If the case of the 
man is so with his wife, it is not expedient to marry.” 
Now in this 9th verse: “ Whosoever shall put away his 
wife, except it be for fornication ”—What is the distinc¬ 
tion between adultery and fornication? Fornication is a 
general term, and adultery is a specific term. Fornica¬ 
tion includes adultery. See in Dr. Broadus’ commentary 
on this nineteenth chapter in which the distinction is 
made between fornication and adultery, and the proof he 
gives is from the Greek. Now if Christ had said, “ Who¬ 
soever shall put away his wife except for adultery,” then 
His statement would not have been comprehensive enough; 
He would have been using a limited term, and it would 
not have covered some cases, for instance, such a case as 


xx] THE SEVENTH COMMANDMENT 225 

this: A man and a woman are betrothed, and under 
the Jewish law it is kindred to marriage, that is, it is as 
binding. Now the woman before marriage violates this 
law; then that man could put her away for that offence 
under the Jewish law. But if Christ had limited it to 
adultery, an offence committed after marriage only would 
have been covered by that term. So He selected the broad 
term, fornication, which applies not only to married peo¬ 
ple, but to unmarried people. I am very glad to bring out 
that distinction, and particularly as a few years ago a 
bishop in Waco took the position that a man could not put 
away his wife for adultery; that the only ground upon 
which he could put her away was a failure of considera¬ 
tion of chastity when they were married; that she was un¬ 
chaste when they were married; that she only “ fooled ” 
him, which was a very erroneous interpretation. 

7. What is Christ’s preventive against unchastity? 

Ans.—In Matthew v, 29, 30, He says, “And if thy right 

eye causeth thee to stumble, pluck it out, and cast it from 
thee; for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members 
should perish, and not thy whole body be cast into hell.” 
This is also recorded in Mark ix, 43-48. Now let me 
read the connection that you may see the preventive: 
“ I say unto you that every one that looketh on a woman 
to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already 
in his heart” (Matthew v, 28). 

8. Is this remedy to be understood literally or spirit¬ 
ually ? 

Ans.—Unquestionably it is to be understood as spir¬ 
itual. To show you that it must be so understood, let us 
suppose that a man uses his eye looking on a woman to 
lust after her, and he therefore plucks out his eye. That 
would not prevent the offence; it could go on with both 
his eyes plucked out. And if his hands were cut off, as 


226 


EXODUS 


[xx 

long as the adultery came out of his heart, it could still 
go on. So it is perfectly foolish to talk about this exci¬ 
sion being literal; it is spiritual. It means this: that 
whatever object entices you to sin, the preventive is, 
turn away from it; give it up; cut it off. That is the 
spiritual thought. Like Paul says, “ I keep my body 
under.” As the little girl in the Sunday School ex¬ 
pressed it, “ Paul kept his soul on top.” “ I keep my body 
under; keep the soul on top.” The members of the body 
are merely instrumental, and Paul says that all sin is 
apart from the body. The body cannot sin. The body is 
used as an instrument of sin, but the sin comes from the 
inner man; it comes out of the heart of the man. 

9. What is Paul’s law of separation between husband 
and wife? 

Ans.—Suppose we read I Corinthians vii, 10: “But 
unto the married I give charge, yea not I, but the Lord, 
That the wife depart not from her husband [but should 
she depart, let her remain unmarried, or else be reconciled 
to her husband]; and that the husband leave not his wife. 
But to the rest say I, not the Lord [that is, when he said 
that he was quoting the words that Christ spake; he does 
not mean that what he is going to say is not from the 
Lord, but it means it is not recorded in the life of Christ ; 
he says he speaks by the Spirit Himself, but what he is 
now going to say is a part of the information that had not 
been verbally given during Christ’s lifetime] : If any 
brother hath an unbelieving wife, and she is content to 
dwell with him, let him not leave her. And the woman 
that hath an unbelieving husband, and he is content to 
dwell with her, let her not leave her husband. For the 
unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife, and the un¬ 
believing wife is sanctified in the husband; else were your 
children unclean; but now are they holy. Yet if the un- 


XX ] THE SEVENTH COMMANDMENT 227 

believing departeth, let him depart; the brother or the 
sister is not under bondage in such cases; but God hath 
called us in peace. For how knowest thou, O wife, 
whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest 
thou, O husband, whether thou shalt save thy wife?” 
You see the case that Paul is discussing is this kind: Sup¬ 
pose a man is converted, a married man, and his wife is 
not converted, and is intensely opposed to his being a 
Christian; she may be a heathen or she may be just a 
worldly minded person. Now is he to put away his unbe¬ 
lieving wife? No. Shall this unbelieving wife remain 
with her husband? Yes. But suppose this unbelieving 
one won’t remain, just simply won’t do it? Well, “ if the 
unbelieving depart, let him depart.” You have done all 
you could; now let him depart. In other words, there can 
be, and often is, in this life a separation between husband 
and wife where it is on account of one of the parties (it 
takes two to make a thing stand) making it impossible for 
the two to live together. If one of them wants to go, and 
will go, why let that one go. 

io. On I Corinthians vii, 15: “ If the unbelieving de¬ 
part, let him depart; the brother or sister is not under 
bondage in such cases.” Does that create an exception 
to Matthew xix, 9? Matthew says that no man can put 
away his wife, save for fornication. Now here is a 
separation that is not based on fornication. Does this 
language, “ a brother or sister is not under bondage in 
such cases,” create a new and additional ground for 
divorce? 

Ans.—I will let Paul answer it himself in verse 11. 
He had just said, “ But if she [the unbelieving wife] 
depart, let her remain unmarried.” Now, there can be 
separation, but there cannot be divorce in this case. 
Where divorce comes, you can remarry, but you cannot 


228 


EXODUS 


[xx 

remarry on mere separation. Take Paul again in verse 
39: “A wife is bound for so long time as her husband 
liveth, but if her husband be dead, she is free to be mar¬ 
ried to whom she will; only in the Lord/’ You see that 
Paul then does not present a second ground of divorce, 
but of separation. Now I will take a case in point. One 
of the oldest, most venerable and useful ministers of 
God that we have had in Texas was Brother Z. N. 
Morrell. When somewhat late in life he married, prob¬ 
ably the second time, his first wife being dead, this later 
marriage was a mistake. The woman would not live with 
him. She would “ blow him up and blow the home up, 
and blow any visitor up.” The brethren could not now 
come to see Brother Morrell but that woman would fire 
a bomb-shell at them just as soon as they would come in 
at the gate. He said, “ Now this kind of thing will not 
do; it stands in the way of my work; and this being the 
case, we had better live apart. I will take care of you 
as long as you live, but cannot fill my duty as a Chris¬ 
tian and a preacher with you here in the house doing as 
you do.” So they had what is called in law a “ divortium 
lecto et mensa,” a divorce from bed and board, but not a 
divorce “ ex vinculo matrimonii,” a divorce from the bonds 
of matrimony. It was a separation but not such a separa¬ 
tion as permits a remarriage. 

ii. What is the meaning of the saying of the disciples 
in Matthew xix, io, if Christ had laid down the law of 
divorce, and Christ’s reply? 

Ans.—I will quote it: Christ had just said, “ Whoso¬ 
ever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and 
shall marry another, committeth adultery, and he that 
marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery.” 
Verse io says, “ If the case of the man is so with his wife, 
it is not expedient to marry.” What does that mean? 


xx] THE SEVENTH COMMANDMENT 229 

They thought it a mighty good thing to marry under the 
Mosaic law of marriage; that if they did not like a 
woman, they could just send her off with a piece of paper 
and go and marry somebody else. But when Christ 
came in and showed them the indissoluble nature of the 
bond, and the sanctity of the relation, they said if this is 
the law of marriage it is not expedient to marry at all. 
That is exactly what they meant; that they had better 
let the marriage relation alone. Our Lord then goes on 
to say that some people have let marriage alone, but 
not for such a reason as they allege. He says a certain 
saying is for those who may receive it; some on account 
of physical disability are eunuchs from their mother's 
womb, etc., but God teaches that marriage is honourable 
and there is a command to multiply and fill the earth 
up with population, and they were wrong in saying that 
because the marriage relation is so stringent, therefore 
it is expedient not to marry at all. 

12. Christ's remedy for unchastity? 

Ans.—It means that when you look into your Leart 
and at your thoughts, you find, even if there have been 
no overt acts, that you have violated this law. Now, 
what is the remedy? The atoning blood of Christ, just 
as you have a remedy for every other sin. Put it into 
the hands of the Advocate and through the blood plea 
you are forgiven. There is no difference in a sin ot this 
kind and any other kind of sin, and the remedy for all 
of them is one remedy—the blood of Christ. 

13. What is the relation of sanctification to this sin? 

Ans.—Listen to this answer: Regeneration takes hold 

of the carnal mind, which is enmity against God and not 
subject to His law, and neither indeed can be. Regenera¬ 
tion changes that mind, that nature. It is the imparting 
of a holy disposition; but notwithstanding regeneration 


230 


EXODUS 


[xx 

the Christian finds that even after he has been a subject 
of regeneration; even after he has been justified through 
the application of the blood of Christ, he finds a law in 
his members warring against the law of his mind. Now 
comes in Christ’s great practical remedy: there is a 
legal remedy, viz.: finding forgiveness through the blood 
of Christ. But the practical remedy is through sanctifi- 
cation: that is, beginning in regeneration, the Spirit con¬ 
tinues His work to make you purer and purer in mind 
and thought, holier and holier, more and more like God, 
until, when the full work of sanctification has been ac¬ 
complished at the death of the body, then you are as 
holy as Christ is holy. You not only have had a change 
of nature in regeneration; you not only are complete in 
Christ through justification, but you have been rendered 
practically as holy as God is holy in yourself. That is 
the relation of sanctification to this doctrine. Oh, how 
many times has the cry gone up when a man finds a law 
in his members working against the law of his mind, 
causing him to do things that he would not, and to leave 
undone things that he would do, finding himself brought 
under subjection to the law of sin and death, until he 
cries out: “ Wretched man that I am! who shall deliver 
me out of the body of this death?” Sanctification is 
continually carried on until body, mind and soul are all 
as perfect as God. So we cannot object to this law of 
Christ on account of its ideal character in not making the 
law to be a sliding scale to fit human infirmity. The law 
is holy, the law is just, the law is good; and you cannot 
make it go down ioo miles to suit one man, 1000 miles 
to suit another man, 10,000 miles to suit still another, and 
so on; and if its standard differs not in one part of the 
world from what it is in another part, it must stand as 
God gave it; that in your heart you must not violate this 


xx] THE SEVENTH COMMANDMENT 231 

law; in your thought you must not do it; nor in the overt 
act. That is the law. Justification will cover all offences; 
conviction and petition will cover all accruing violation; 
sanctification will put you in the condition that you will 
not want to violate it, ultimately. When Paul has just 
given the law, he says that the law holds till death, as 
the woman is under the law to her husband as long as 
he lives, and that there is but one offence known under 
heaven among men that in the sight of God will justify 
an absolution and allow remarriage. 

OTHER QUESTIONS 

1. What is the law in the members? 

Ans.—It is the residue or the remainder of the deprav¬ 
ity in nature, not yet subdued by regeneration. Re¬ 
generation imparts a principle of life, but the entire na¬ 
ture is not yet subdued unto God, and through the body 
as an instrument it tempts the man and tempts him to 
sin. That is the law in the members. 

2. Does fornication include drunkenness? 

Ans.—No. 

3. Does it include profligacy? 

Ans.—When profligacy refers to the matter in hand. 
A man can be profligate in other matters. It refers to 
all forms of violation of purity in the sexual relation. 

4. Should a church discipline one of its members who 
marries a man divorced from an unscriptural cause? 

Ans.—That is a question to which there has never been 
a practical solution. I confess that I am more stalled 
over the discipline question, as under this law, than every¬ 
thing else in the world put together. I never did have 
anything to bother me like that matter. Now there will 
cases come up much more complicated than the way you 


232 


EXODUS 


[xx 

have put it. It supposes that he marries the divorced 
woman and is a member of the church before the offence 
was committed, and was under the jurisdiction of the 
church when the offence was committed. If I had been 
the preacher and I had known that he was marrying the 
woman divorced, and not from a Scriptural standpoint, 
I never would have officiated at his marriage, and if he 
had asked me if it was lawful under Christ, I would have 
told him no, it was not, and if he violated that command¬ 
ment, he would be disowning his allegiance to Jesus 
Christ. I had a most touching letter of appeal not many 
months ago, from one of the best young men and one of 
the best young ladies I ever knew. I doubt whether any 
church can be found with a purer, more chaste young 
Christian woman than she was. Now, in the man’s case 
he had been divorced, but not for the Scriptural reason. 
Years had passed away; his wife still living though not 
married again. He fell in love with this girl, and they 
wrote me to know if they might, under Christ’s law, 
marry. I said, “ Do not do it; do not do it.” I said, “ It 
is better sometimes to deny yourselves than it is to 
gratify yourselves. A greater accretion of moral stam¬ 
ina comes from renunciation than from gratification; and 
now do not marry.” And they wrote back that they would 
not. Now this question: If they had married would you 
discipline them? That the law had been violated is 
unquestionable. The object of discipline is to “ gain ” 
a party. Sometimes when the law is violated there comes 
such a complication that to attempt to exercise discipline 
would do more harm than good. For instance, suppose 
two or three children have been born to these people. 
Now you go in and discipline the mother; what about 
the children? Who is to take care of them? Now I 
would say this, that my mind is perfectly clear that if 


xx] THE SEVENTH COMMANDMENT 233 

one had been married in the case of the divorce not on 
Scriptural grounds, I would say, “ Do not join the church; 
do the best you can outside. You cannot join the church 
without doing harm to the church,” and I am very much 
inclined to the position that the discipline had better be 
exercised, but it takes a strong man and a strong church 
to be able to do it. Some preachers will lose their pastor¬ 
ate on it, because there are complications. 

5. In case of separation where divorce is not allowed, 
if one party marries is the other free? 

Ans.—Yes. Not per se, but he can state to the church 
how they were living apart for peace’ sake, and how it is 
a clear case of violation of marriage law. Any church 
would say, “ You are free to marry.” You see that 
brings in the justifiable ground. The divorce cases are all 
over the world; and it commenced, of course, with the 
“ big bugs ” of the rich people first. They started it; 
they got the idea that they, because they had the money, 
were not amenable to anyone; and what is called the 
“ Four Hundred,” the “ Uppen Ten ” of New York 
has scarcely a family without a divorce, followed by a re¬ 
marriage, and you see them at their parties introducing 
one another: “Well, Mrs. C., I am glad to meet you; 
I hope you have gotten along O. K. with my former hus¬ 
band.” “ Mr. D., let me introduce you to my first hus¬ 
band’s second wife,” until shame has come upon the 
nation; the sanctity of the family has been destroyed, and 
children are ashamed to hear the name of father and 
mother repeated. 


XX 


THE DECALOGUE—THE EIGHTH 
COMMANDMENT 

Exodus XX, 75; Deuteronomy V, 19 ^ 

T HIS chapter is on the commandment “ Thou shalt 
not steal.” 

1. What is the positive form of this command¬ 
ment? 

Ans.—Be honest. 

2. What is the basis of the law, “ Thou shalt not 
steal ” ? 

Ans.—Unless there is such a thing as property, it 
would be impossible to have a commandment, “ Thou 
shalt not steal.” So that this commandment is based upon 
the right of property. We continually go back to the 
original declaration to man when God gave him the title 
to the earth, and gave him the commission to subdue the 
earth “ in usufruct,” that is, in the use of its fruits is the 
property of man. 

3. What is the derivation of the word property f 
Ans.—It comes from the Latin word, “ proprius,” 
which means “ peculiar to one ” or “ personal to one,” 
and therefore the idea of property is something that is 
yours and not another’s. 

4. What are the inherent rights of property? 

Ans.—(1) A right to keep in harmony with God. 
And you can steal that right from man as well as you can 

234 


xx] THE EIGHTH COMMANDMENT 235 

any other kind of property. (2) The right to himself, 
and the greatest of all stealing, so far as man is con¬ 
cerned, is what, in the Bible, is called “ menstealing,” the 
stealing of men. One of the accusations against the 
false church, Babylon, was that she dealt in slaves and 
the souls of men, and one of the most inhuman, cruel 
kinds of theft in the world is the kidnapping of children. 
So that the stealing of a man is the highest order of 
theft that relates to man. (3) The right to his family 
and domestic happiness. You can steal a man’s wife, 
alienate her affections; you can alienate the affections of 
a child. A man may feel robbed of that which makes 
the very sunlight and peace of his home. (4) The right 
to space. Man is a finite being and he must have a place 
to turn around in. Hence the great woe pronounced in 
Isaiah: “ Woe unto them that add house to house and 
land to land until there is no room for the people.” God 
gave the earth to man and it is stealing from a man to 
rob him of his place in the earth where he can be. (5) 
The right to health. Suppose a factory is built and the 
operators are required to work under such conditions as 
will necessarily undermine their health; or if forced to 
live in tenements of such unsanitary conditions that health 
is stolen from the occupant, there is no doubt on earth 
but that is a violation of this commandment. You could, 
with much more impunity and less heinousness, steal a 
man’s money than steal his health. (6) The right to time. 
I mean some time for himself. You must not work him 
so many hours of the day or so many days of the week 
that he never has time to think for himself and for his 
family and concerning his God. All those rules which 
require undue hours of labour or labour all the week 
round, including Sunday, are violations of this command¬ 
ment. (7) Then he has a right to work. Because God 


236 


EXODUS 


[xx 

has made labour, the common heritage of man, and if 
you take away from a man his chance to do any work 
by which he can make an honourable living, you have 
robbed him of more than if you had taken his money. 
He is not only entitled to the right of labour but to fair 
profits on his labour. You must not grind him down so 
that his labour will not bring him in enough to live on, 
and wherever there is a right to acquire property, there is 
a right to hold it and a right to transmit it to children. 
(8) Then comes the right of safety. If a man lives 
under a government and that government does not pro¬ 
tect his life from unnecessary peril, it has robbed him of 
more than money. It used to be a sort of cruel thing 
when a person taken prisoner by the wild Indians was 
compelled to run a gauntlet, run between two rows of 
fierce warriors armed with clubs, each one to hit him as 
he went by. There was very little safety in that gauntlet. 
But if you force a school child to go to school through a 
gauntlet of saloons and gambling houses, that is robbing 
him of safety more than the Indians robbed a man of 
safety when they required him to run that gauntlet of 
clubs. (9) He is entitled to rest. We can’t live if we 
don’t have time to rest, and any condition of society that 
so places people that there is no opportunity for rest is 
robbery. (10) Man is entitled to his good name, and it 
is a much bigger offence to steal a man’s reputation by 
slander than it is to steal his money. So the above are 
inherent rights and inalienable rights that God endows a 
man with. 

5. What are the acquired rights of property? 

Ans.—Now his acquired rights are those that come 
from labour. If I go out into the forest and cut down a 
hickory tree and make an axe helve out of it, that is 
mine; that is the fruit of my labour. You may reply that 


xx] THE EIGHTH COMMANDMENT 237 

that tree was in the forest. Yes, but the axe helve wasn’t 
there. I made that axe helve and by my labours I ac¬ 
quired a right of property. If you take up a piece of 
wild land and cut off the timber, take up the roots and 
break up the soil, then you acquire a right of property 
through labour, and hence political economists tell us that 
all rights of property come from labour. 

6. How is property a token of man ? 

Ans.—Because none of these things apply to a brute. 
A brute doesn’t build a house; he doesn’t cultivate a 
field; a brute doesn't utilize the winds and the waves and 
the waterfalls to minister unto his necessities. So that 
this is a token of a man and not of a brute. Brutes have 
no property. 

7. From what does all obligation arise? 

Ans.—An obligation arises primarily from relation and 
that relation is an expression of rights as well as of obli¬ 
gations. So that the essential idea in stealing is a dis¬ 
regard of the rights of relation. I build a house and a 
man gets it by fraud. He has no labour relation to that 
house. He disregards it. It is another man’s work. 
One will steal away the affections of a wife. She bore 
no relation to him, but she did to her husband. 

8. What, then, is the essential idea of stealing? 

Ans.—The essential idea of stealing, then, is the dis¬ 
regarding of relations. 

9. What other commandment is the root of which this 
is the fruit? 

Ans.—The tenth commandment says, “ Thou shalt not 
covet.” “ Thou shalt not steal ” is the overt act. “ Thou 
shalt not covet my house, my money, my family, anything 
that is mine.” There the commandment deals with the 
thought, with the desire. But stealing is the overt act. 


238 EXODUS [xx 

So that the tenth commandment is the root of the eighth 
commandment. 

10. What is the primal source of stealing? 

Ans.—The primal source of stealing is a bad heart. 

11. Secondary sources? 

Ans.—There are some very powerful secondary 
sources; I call your attention to some of them: (i) Ex¬ 
treme poverty, or necessity. Agur prayed, “ Give me not 
poverty, lest I steal.” (2) Another is indolence, laziness. 
A man steals because he is too lazy to work. (3) An¬ 
other is fast living. One lives faster than he can supply, 
and so he must get his resources in some other way than 
by hard work. He steals. (4) Then comes a love of 
display. You want to show off; you want to assume 
to have more than you are able to have. The love of 
luxuries and display oftentimes causes stealing. (5) 
But more than all is the love of money. That may be 
a root of every kind of evil—love of money—but it is 
this greed of money that causes more kinds of stealing 
than every other cause in the world put together. 

12. What names express open violation of this law? 

Ans.—On the high seas, piracy; on the land, highway 

robbery, burglary, theft. 

13. Cite some of the methods of covert violation. 

Ans.—Deuteronomy xxv, 13: “ Thou shalt not have 

divers weights and measures.” If you do, that is covert 
stealing. Sometimes in going into a little grocery store, 
you pick up a tray that holds the articles that they are to 
weigh and look under the bottom of it and you find lead 
or pewter put under there. That makes it already draw, 
before anything is put in it, several ounces. That is 
what is called a false weight, and it is stealing. Suppose 
a man steals by a quart measure that doesn’t hold a quart, 
or a bushel measure that doesn’t hold a bushel, or in 


xx] THE EIGHTH COMMANDMENT 239 

measuring off a piece of cloth, his yardstick may be all 
right but he may use his two thumbs so that he steals the 
width of his two thumbs every time he measures off a 
yard. I want to read you what an old prophet of God 
said on that. Amos viii, 4-7: “ Hear this, O ye that 
would swallow up the needy, and cause the poor of the 
land to fail, saying, When will the new moon be gone, 
that we may sell grain ? and the sabbath, that we may set 
forth wheat, making the ephah small, and the shekel 
great, and dealing falsely with balances of deceit; that we 
may buy the poor for silver, and the needy for a pair of 
shoes, and sell the refuse of the wheat ? ” All those 
tricks of trade under the Mosaic law come under the 
head of stealing. 

(2) Another method is expressed in Proverbs iii, 28. 
As I want to particularly impress this thought on you 
I will quote this passage: “ Say not unto thy neigh¬ 
bour, Go, and come again and to-morrow I will give; 
when thou hast it by thee/’ that is, if you delay a payment 
when it is due, when you put the man to the trouble to 
come back again or say, “ I will see you to-morrow,” 
or “ come next week,” that is stealing. You are keeping 
him that long out of the use of his money, and Moses had 
a statute of this kind, “ Let not the sun go down without 
paying the day-labourer his wages.” That man is already 
convicted in the eyes of the world as a thief who never 
pays his washerwoman. These people who toil hard for 
their daily living and are dependent upon what they earn 
for the next day’s food, if they go without their money 
twenty-four hours, they are really injured, the very bread 
has been taken out of their mouths. 

(3) Here is another, Proverbs xx, 14: “ It is bad, it 
is bad, saith the buyer. But when he is gone his way, 
then he boasteth.” You come up to sell a man a horse 


240 


EXODUS 


[xx 

and he looks at him and says, “ He is a little fellow, his 
hoofs are stove up. Looks to me as if he has the spavin, 
he is wind-broken, or has ring-bone. He is bad, bad.” 
Well, you feel like he ought to be paid something to take 
that horse, and as soon as the fellow gets the horse and 
gets off, he throws back his head and laughs at what a 
bargain he has made. That is stealing. 

14. Cite several kinds of covert stealing. 

Ans.—(1) Official stealing, using the office that you 
are in in order to fill your pockets; (2) Corporate steal¬ 
ing; (3) Wall-Street stealing. On that I have a special 
question. 

15. Cite and explain certain classifications of Wall- 
Street stealing. 

Ans.—(1) “ Bearing” the market, the object of which 
is to lower the price of an article that they want to buy. 
They are called “ the bears.” Their object is to reduce 
stocks, to make prices sink clear out of sight, and then 
surreptitiously they buy. (2) The second is “bulling” 
the market. The object of that is to push stocks up so 
high that they can sell and make fortunes. That is, the 
pressure that they bring to bear to make stock, say worth 
fifty cents, $2.50. Then they sell. Then they clear $2.00, 
paying fifty cents and bull the market till the stock goes 
away up yonder and then they sell. (3) Freezing out. 
That is, a number of men, say twenty, go into a company 
and one or two of them manage to get a majority of stock, 
say they get just $1.00 over half of the stock. Now that 
enables them to entirely control the whole stock, and they 
want to make the others sell out to them for a song, and 
therefore by controlling the stock they see to it that these 
men never get any dividends or any interest on their 
money. And they let them know that there are no profits 
made; they vote on big salaries among themselves so that 


xx] THE EIGHTH COMMANDMENT 241 

there are never any dividends. Finally the poor fellows 
see the best thing for them to do is to sell out for what 
they can get. That is freezing out. (4) The next is 
pooling. Say one man hasn’t got enough money to make 
stocks go up as high as he wants them or to go down as 
low as he wants them; if they are up, he will want to 
sell, and if they are down he will want to buy; now he is 
not able himself to lower or raise the price of the stock. 
Then pooling comes in: say forty or fifty of the richest 
men put in each so much to be used in the stock market 
for bulling or bearing. That is pooling. (5) The next is 
cornering the market, that is, getting control, say, of all 
the tobacco, or all the wheat, or all the barley, or of all 
the sugar, getting a corner on it. Now by getting this 
corner on a certain product, they can hold back from sale 
any part of it and hold it back until they can make the 
price. The world must have its sugar, or its wheat, and 
they will hold it back until it booms; wheat goes to $1.50, 
then they sell. While they are doing that, thousands of 
people are starving. (6) The next is watering stock. 
They unite and buy a piece of property, that costs them 
$50,000. They instantly vote that that property is worth 
$100,000 and they divide that stock up into a hundred 
shares of $1,000 each, and go out and sell it. That is 
watering stock. (7) Then there is monopoly, working so 
as to have complete control of a supply so that there is 
no competition, and just as a highwayman stands before 
you with a loaded pistol and says, “ Stand and deliver,” 
they can make you stand and deliver. You can’t help 
yourself. 

16. Who wrote this passage: 

“ In vain we call old notions fudge 
And bend our conscience to our dealing, 

The Ten Commandments will not budge, 

And stealing will continue stealing.” 


242 


EXODUS 


[xx 

That is a fine statement. These old Ten Commandments 
will not budge, and man may, through what he calls busi¬ 
ness methods, violate them and bend his conscience to 
his dealings, but all the same God’s standard remains and 
stealing will continue stealing. You notice I am not 
answering that question for you. 

17. How does human law classify thefts? 

Ans.—Petit larceny and grand larceny, that is, little 
stealing and big stealing. 

18. How does divine law classify thefts? 

Ans.—Puts everything that man does to man as petit 
larceny and all robbery of God as grand larceny. 

19. Under the divine classification cite a Scriptural in¬ 
stance of “ grand larceny.” 

Ans.—Malachi iii, 8, 9: “Will a man rob God? Yet 
ye have robbed me.” 

20. Grade according to heinousness the different kinds 
of stealing. 

Ans.—I would commence that grading this way: (1) 
Robbing God; that is grand larceny; (2) Next, the big¬ 
gest larceny is stealing a man; (3) The next would be 
stealing the honour of a family; (4) The next would be 
official corruption; (5) Next would be corporate cor¬ 
ruption; then (6) down to stealing things, like stealing 
$1,000 in money, or a thousand yards of cloth, or any¬ 
thing of that kind. 

21. Cite passage from Paul expressing this eighth com¬ 
mandment both positively and negatively. 

Ans.—Romans xii, 17: “Recompense to no man evil 
for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all 
men.” Romans xiii, 8: “ Owe no man anything, but 

to love one another; for he that loveth another hath 
fulfilled the law.” II Corinthians viii, 21: “ Providing for 
honest things, not only in the sight of the Lord, but also 


xx] THE EIGHTH COMMANDMENT 243 

in the sight of men.” Ephesians iv, 28: “ Let him that 
stole steal no more; but rather let him labour, working 
with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have 
to give to him that needeth.” 

The above passages express Paul’s idea of this com¬ 
mandment. 

22. Cite some of the reasons for the present alarming 
high cost of living and the bearing of this cost on 
temptations to violate this commandment. 

Ans.—(1) The cost of living always goes up in pro¬ 
portion to the number of middlemen. For instance, if I 
plant potatoes and bring that crop in and put it in my 
smoke-house, there is no middleman to draw a profit. I 
have my own potatoes, raise my beeves, hogs, etc. But 
when through middlemen potatoes are bought up for 
wholesale, and then through a number of middlemen are 
sold to the consumer, each middleman takes out his 
profit and the consumer has to pay for all the profits. 

(2) But if I had to state the main reason for the 
present high cost of living, I would say “ Cold storage 
inventions.” There never has been anything in the his¬ 
tory of the world that has affected the price of living like 
cold storages. Here is an invention by which you can 
take the most perishable things, a fruit that wouldn’t keep 
good two days, an egg that won’t keep good in your 
house over five days, or a piece of beef that won’t keep 
good without tainting twenty-four hours, and put it in 
that cold storage and you can keep it indefinitely. 
Wealth combines and builds these cold storages, there¬ 
fore they can go out over the country and buy up every¬ 
thing on the face of the earth that is for sale, your chick¬ 
ens, hogs, beeves, turkeys and everything, and they put 
them in these cold storages, and they tickle the people 
over the prices they pay for their turkeys and chickens 


EXODUS 


2U 



and eggs, but wait till you want to buy a turkey for a 
Christmas dinner. You go down to get a turkey and the 
word comes back, “ The only chance is to get a cold 
storage turkey.” And the price is $4.00 apiece. You see 
they control the market through the cold storage. Post 
Toasties and Corn Flakes and nearly everything that goes 
on a modern table do not come to you direct, but they 
come to you as having passed through some process of a 
middleman and every man gets a price on it. You think 
you are getting Post Toasties cheap, but when you ask 
yourself how many grains of corn, how many bushels of 
corn went to a certain quantity of Post Toasties, you find 
they get about $25 per bushel for corn, selling it as Post 
Toasties. 

23. Cite a passage from George Washington pertinent 
to this commandment. 

Ans.—“ I hope I shall always possess firmness and 
virtue enough to maintain what I consider the most 
enviable of all titles—the character of an honest man ” 
The most enviable of all titles, an honest man. And he 
was that. 

24. What does the great British essayist. Pope, say 
on this? 

Ans.—He says, “ An honest man is the noblest work 
of God.” 

25. Who wrote it and where do you find this passage? 


“ Good name in man and woman, dear my Lord, 

Is the immediate jewel of their souls; 

Who steals my purse steals trash; ’tis something, 
nothing; 

But he that filches from me my good name 
Robs me of that which not enriches him 
And makes me poor indeed.” 

26. What remarkable New Testament instance of offi¬ 
cial stealing? 


xx] THE EIGHTH COMMANDMENT 24>5 

Ans.—I will let you find out. 

27. What Old Testament and New Testament laws re¬ 
quire honesty as a qualification for office? 

Ans.—I will let you find that out. 

28. Cite several notable Bible cases of official honesty. 

Ans.—Moses in his farewell address; Samuel in his 

farewell address; Paul in his farewell address to the 
elders of Ephesus at Miletus. 

29. Who wrote of “ the itching palm ” in office, adding: 

“ What, shall one of us, 

That struck the foremost man of all this world 
But for supporting robbers; shall we now 
Contaminate our fingers with bare bribes, 

And shall the mighty space of our large honours 
For so much trash as may be grasped thus? 

I had rather be a dog and bay the moon, 

Than such a Roman-.” 

Where do you find the above? 

30. What Old Testament statutes safeguard the 
necessitous from the temptation to steal? 

Ans—The people had no fences. Roads passed right 
through the fields. Every man was at liberty when pass¬ 
ing through a field or an orchard to eat what was neces¬ 
sary food to him. He could pluck the ears of corn and 
rub them in his hands and eat them, he could pull a bunch 
of grapes and eat them (he couldn’t take any away in a 
basket). The law was “When thou reapest thy fields, 
thou shalt not glean them.” Nor glean them in the cor¬ 
ners, but leave the gleanings for the poor; leave what the 
sickle passes over for the poor and let them come in and 
get some of it. 

31. What caustic proverb exposes man’s false grading 
of thefts? 

Ans.—“ Steal a loaf and go to the penitentiary; 

Steal a horse and be hanged; 

Steal a million and be a Captain of Finance.” 



246 EXODUS [xx 

32 . What modern classic and masterpiece of fiction 
shows the inhumanity and severity in punishing petit 
larceny committed in despair of want and makes a hero 
of the thief? 

Ans.—They say that it is the greatest book of fiction 
that has ever been written. I will let you find out. 


XXI 


THE DECALOGUE—THE NINTH 
COMMANDMENT 

Exodus XX, 16; Deuteronomy V, 20 

“r i ^HOU shalt not bear false witness against thy 
neighbour” (Exodus xx, 16). 

1. As an introduction to this commandment, 
what two antagonistic forms rise up before us? 

Ans.—Jesus, the Son of God, and the devil. 

2. Show their respective relations to this command¬ 
ment. 

Ans.—All obedience to this commandment is inspired 
by Christ; all disobedience is inspired by the devil. 

3. What great titles of the Son of God bearing on this 
commandment ? 

Ans.—He is called the “ Logos,” the Word of God, the 
True Witness, The Truth, as, “ I am the Truth.” 

4. What titles of Satan bearing on it? 

Ans.—“ The Devil,” which is translated from the 
Greek “ diabolos,” and means a calumniator, a slanderer, 
an accuser, a false witness; he is also called a liar, and 
the “ Father of Lies.” Jesus calls him that in John viii, 
44. I therefore consider it very important that we shall 
notice the relation of Jesus and the devil to this com¬ 
mandment. 

5. What gift of the Creator to man which, next to his 
spiritual nature, most distinguishes him from the brute? 

247 


248 


EXODUS 


[xx 


Ans.—The gift of speech, to talk, to witness. 

6. What and why the two miracles of exception? 

Ans.—On one occasion God endowed a dumb brute 

with the power of speech in order to convey the truth 
to a prophet who was going astray [Balaam]. Another 
exception: the devil conferred the power of speech upon 
the serpent in order to make Eve bear false witness 
against God and against man. 

7. What the true office of words? 

Ans.—Words are (1) signs of ideas, and are in¬ 
tended (2) to reveal the inward nature of the speaker, 
just as “Jesus, the Logos,” the True Witness. Thus 
Jesus was to reveal the inward nature of God to man; His 
witness concerning God was true; there was no falsehood 
in Him, but the devil’s witness concerning God was false. 

8. According to the Italian diplomat, Machiavelli, what 
is their true office? 

Ans.—To conceal ideas and to hide what is on the in¬ 
side. 

9. What sins may be committed by words ? 

Ans.— Blasphemy, that is, to speak evil of God; sacri¬ 
lege , that is, an offence against God; perjury, to bear 
false witness in the limited, legal sense, to tell a lie when 
under oath; slander, dattery, backbiting, whispering and 
everyday lying, prevarication, false suggestions, using 
words with double meaning, words that deceive, exagger¬ 
ation, depreciation by speech, suppressive speech. Those 
are among the sins of evil speaking. 

10. What says Jesus about words? 

Ans.—In Matthew xii, 37: “ For by thy words shalt 
thou be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be con¬ 
demned.” And “For every word (idle) that man shall 
speak he shall give an account in the judgment.” 

11. What is the New Testament law on the use of 


xx] THE NINTH COMMANDMENT 249 

words, and what Old Testament prayer concerning 
words? 

Ans.—The New Testament law is: (i) “Let your 
communications be yea, yea, and nay, nay; for whatso¬ 
ever is more than these cometh of evil.” (2) “ Let your 
speech be seasoned with salt.” (3) “ Speak the truth 
with thy neighbour . . . speaking the truth in love.” 
The Old Testament prayers are: (1) Psalms xix: 
“ Let the words of my mouth and the meditations of 
• my heart be acceptable in thy sight, O Jehovah, . . .” 
(2) “ O Jehovah, set a watch at the door of my mouth; 
that I speak no evil” (Psalms cxli, 3). 

12. Mention some Biblical testimony to good words. 

Ans.—Isaiah 1 , 4, has the expression: “ The Lord Je¬ 
hovah hath given me the tongue of them that are taught 
that I may know how to sustain with words him that is 
weary ”; Psalms xlv, 1, makes the declaration : “ I speak; 
my word is for a king; my tongue is the pen of a ready 
writer,” and ... “ Grace is poured into thy lips ”; 

Proverbs x, 11: “ The mouth of the righteous is a foun¬ 
tain of life ”; xv, 4: “ A gentle tongue is a tree of life ”; 
xvi, 24: “ Pleasant words are as a honeycomb, sweet 

to the soul, and health to the bones ”; xxv, 11: “A word 
fitly spoken is like apples of gold in network of sil¬ 
ver.” 

13. Define the words: “ Simplicity ” “ candour,” “ sin¬ 
cerity,” as bearing on this commandment. 

Ans.—The word “ simplicity ” is derived from “ sim¬ 
plex,” onefold; and “ duplicity ” from “ duplex,” two¬ 
fold. A man who tells the plain truth speaks with sim¬ 
plicity ; a man speaking with a double purpose—it may be 
this, it may be that—uses duplicity. “ Candour ” comes 
from “ candidus,” white; a candid man is a white man, 
transparent; you can see through him. Therefore the 


250 


EXODUS 


[xx 

appropriateness of that word “ candid ”; some folks are 
white, transparent; you can see through them. Look up 
“ sincerity.” 

14. What says the Psalmist about a deceitful tongue? 

Ans.—Psalms cxx, 2: “ Deliver my soul, O Jehovah, 

from lying lips, and from a deceitful tongue. What shall 
be given unto thee, and what shall be done more unto 
thee, thou deceitful tongue? . . . Sharp arrows of 

the mighty with coals of juniper.” 

15. What does James say about the tongue? 

Ans.—James iii, 2-12: “For in many things we all 
stumble. If any stumbleth not in word, the same is a 
perfect man, able to bridle the whole body also. Now if 
we put the horses’ bridles into their mouths that they may 
obey us, we turn about their whole body also. Behold, 
the ships also, though they are so great and are driven 
by rough winds, are yet turned about by a very small 
rudder, whither the impulse of the steersman willeth. 
So the tongue also is a little member, and boasteth great 
things. Behold, how much wood is kindled by how small 
a fire! And the tongue is a fire; the world of iniquity 
among our members is the tongue, which defileth the 
whole body, and setteth on fire the wheel of nature, and is 
set on fire by hell. For every kind of beasts and birds, of 
creeping things and things in the sea, is tamed, and hath 
been tamed by mankind; but the tongue can no man tame; 
it is a restless evil, it is full of deadly poison. There¬ 
with bless we the Lord and Father; and therewith curse 
we men, who are made after the likeness of God; out of 
the same mouth cometh forth blessing and cursing. My 
brethren, these things ought not so to be. Doth the foun¬ 
tain send forth from the same opening sweet water and 
bitter? can a fig tree, my brethren, yield olives, or a 
vine figs ? neither can salt water yield sweet. ,, 


xx] THE NINTH COMMANDMENT 251 

16. What says the Psalmist about duplicity of speech? 

Ans.—Psalms lv, 21: 

“ His mouth was smooth as butter, but his heart was war: 

His words were softer than oil, yet they were drawn 
swords.” 

And as an illustration of that, when Joab assaulted 
Abner he said, “ How is thy health, my brother? ” Then 
he took him by the beard as if to kiss him but smote him 
under the fifth rib, so that he died. 

17. What says Proverbs on evil speech? 

Ans.—Proverbs xxvi, 18-25: “As a madman who 
casteth firebrands, arrows, and death, so is the man that 
deceiveth his neighbour, and saith, Am not I in sport? 
For lack of wood the fire goeth out; and where there is 
no whisperer, contention ceaseth. As coals are to hot 
embers, and wood to fire, so is a contentious man to 
inflame strife. The words of a whisperer are as dainty 
morsels, and they go down into the innermost parts. Fer¬ 
vent lips and a wicked heart are like an earthen vessel 
overlaid with silver dross. He that hateth dissembleth 
with his lips; but he layeth up deceit within him; when 
he speaketh fair, believe him not; for there are seven 
abominations in his heart.” 

18. What says Shakespeare of slander? 

Ans.—In Cymbeline, Act III, Scene iv, he tells of a 
deceived husband, who, believing his wife to be disloyal, 
writes his servant, accusing her of nuptial infidelity, and 
commands him to kill her. The servant shows the letter 
to the accused wife, whom he believes to be innocent. 
Watching the effect of the letter on her, he says: 

“What shall I need to draw my sword? The paper 
Hath cut her throat already.—No, tis slander; 


252 


EXODUS 


[xx 


Whose edge is sharper than the sword; whose tongue 
Outvenoms all the worms of Nile; whose breath 
Rides on the posting winds, and doth belie 
All corners of the world; kings, queens, and states, 
Maids, matrons, nay, the secrets of the grave 
This viprous slander enters.” 


19. What says Plautus of talebearing, that kind of false 
witness ? 

Ans.—It is in Latin: 

“Homines qui gestant, quique auscultant crimina, 

Si meo arbitratu liceat, omnes pendeant, 

Gestores linguis, auditores auribus.” 

—“ Those men who carry about, and those who listen to 
slanders, should, if I could have my way, all be hanged; 
the tattlers by their tongues, the listeners by their ears.” 
I quoted that to my wife. She said: “ La! If that old 
heathen could carry out all he wanted to, what a lot of 
women would be hanging up! ” 

20. What couplet did the great theologian, Augustine, 
write over his table? 

Ans.— 


“ Quisquis amat dictis absentum rodere vitam 
Hanc mensam vetitam moverit esse sibi.” 

A couplet translated thus: 


“ He that is wont to slander absent men 
May never at this table sit again.” 

A good thing to have hanging over your table: “ With 
such an one no, not to eat.” 

21. What says Jesus of Nathanael? 

Ans.—“ Behold an Israelite indeed in whom is no 
guile.” 


xx] THE NINTH COMMANDMENT 253 

22. What says Shakespeare of a true man? 

Ans.—“ Two Gentlemen of Verona,” Act II, Scene 
vii: 


“ His words are bonds, his oaths are oracles; 

His love sincere, his thoughts immaculate; 

His tears, pure messengers sent from his heart; 

His heart as far from fraud as heaven from earth.” 

23. How did Edgar Allan Poe represent the ultimate 
effect of good and evil words? 

Ans.— 


“ I had a dream and there came to me a heavenly being. It 
took me on a long flight of observation; and after a while I 
saw an island. Oh! it was beautiful! covered with verdure; its 
trees blushed with flowers, and abounding through boughs were 
luscious fruits. Its skies were serene, birds and angels were 
singing there; and I said to my guide, ‘What is that island?’ 
He said, ‘ That, sir, is a good word which you kindly spoke once 
to a weary suffering heart, and that word went on acting, re¬ 
acting and reacting, till it struck the shores of eternity; and 
God crystallized it into that island! ’ And then my guide took me 
until I saw another island, a horrible sight, a volcanic rock, a 
bare rock, sin-scarred, frigid, horrible! no grass, no flowers, 
no fruits, no birds; and above it the sky was dark with ashes. 
And I said to my guide, ‘What is that?’ ‘That is an evil word 
that you spoke once on earth; and it went on acting, reacting and 
reacting, until it struck eternity’s shores, and God crystallized it 
into this.’ ” 

24. What does Pope say of an indirect lie ? And what 
example of indirect false witness is given by Edward 
Eggleston in “ The Hoosier Schoolmaster ” ? 

Ans.—Listen: 

“ Damn with faint praise, assent with civil leer, 

And without sneering teach the rest to sneer; 

Willing to wound and yet afraid to strike, 

Just hint a fault, and hesitate—dislike? ” 

Here Eggleston represents Dr. Small as bearing false 
witness against the Hoosier Schoolmaster by silence, just 


254? 


EXODUS 


fxx 


lifting his eyebrows; for not speaking when he should 
have spoken, and by just lifting his eyebrows so as to 
make a false impression on the one to whom he was 
talking. He ruined the reputation of the school teacher. 
Shakespeare says that anyone is false who just “urns” 
and “ ems,” or gives a shrug of the shoulders that way; 
it kills, and is without true speech. 

25. How does the New Testament characterize evil 
speakers ? 

Ans.—“ Liars, slanderers, flatterers, backbiters, whis¬ 
perers, idlers, busybodies, boasters, who speak great 
swelling words of vanity; who in covetousness use feigned 
words,” and so on. 

26. What does Tennyson say of a lie which is half 
a truth? 

Ans.—In “ The Grandmother ” he wrote: 

“ A lie which is half a truth is ever the blackest of lies; 

A lie which is all a lie may be met and fought with 
outright; 

But a lie which is part a truth is a harder matter to 
fight.” 

27. If you would be strictly truthful, what part of 
speech must you handle carefully? 

Ans.—There are said to be nine parts of speech in the 
old grammars. One answers, “ the personal pronoun 
I ”; another, “ the verb.” The correct answer is “ the 
adjective.” Beware of the adjective, especially in the 
superlative degree. You can tell more lies with the adjec¬ 
tive than with anything else, and especially if you have a 
very vivid imagination and are impulsive, e.g., “ the 
greatest man in the world! ” “ the best man you ever 
saw,” and “ the sweetest girl in the universe; so infinitely 
good.” Well, that will do. 


xx] THE NINTH COMMANDMENT 255 

28. Now in its fulness, what does this commandment 
forbid and inculcate? 

Ans.—Of course you can see on the face of it that it 
forbids, when giving evidence in a case, bearing false 
witness against your neighbour. But it also forbids 
every method of bearing false witness against a neigh¬ 
bour, as has been explained in these numerous examples 
cited. You may tell a lie on your neighbour, bear false 
witness against him, by a sigh, or a shrug, or even just 
putting your tongue out, or a kind of gesture, or a mere 
intonation of voice; by slandering, biting him in the back, 
and this sub rosa, “ just between you and me,” and you 
lean over and whisper; that whisper starts out and grows 
bigger and bigger as it goes; it first says that this man 
got sick and threw up something that was as black as 
a crow; the next time he threw up a crow, and the next 
time he threw up two crows, and still later, three crows, 
and it goes on increasing that way. It forbids every kind 
of lie: blasphemy, sacrilege, perjury, flattery, deceiving 
words, distortion of meaning, using words with double 
meaning. You say a thing concerning a man that is 
capable of being understood in two contrary senses— 
duplex words, multiplex words, insincere words, un- 
candid words. What now does it inculcate ? Everything 
the opposite of this. It inculcates truth when you speak 
of God and man; it is expected of a witness that he be 
found faithful, that he tell the truth, the whole truth and 
nothing but the truth, not by a shadow of wavering to 
convey false impression. 

29. What is the legal name of bearing false witness? 

Ans.—Perjury, i.e., telling a lie under oath. 

30. What is the triple nature of this offence? 

Ans.—(1) Because it was an oath to God, it is a sin 
against God; then (2) it is a sin against yourself; and 


256 EXODUS [xx 

(3) against the one whom your testimony was calculated 
to injure. 

31. What the Mosaic penalty for a false witness? 

Ans.—He must be made to suffer whatever his false 

testimony would have led the one to suffer had his testi¬ 
mony been accepted. That is the Mosaic penalty. 

32. What is the New Testament penalty? 

Ans.—“ All liars shall have their part in the lake that 
burneth with fire and brimstone.” A little girl once 
reading that passage read it: “ All lawyers ” instead of 
“ all liars ”—“ Hold on! ” said the teacher. “ Well, go 
on; you are not very far from it.” 


XXII 


THE DECALOGUE—THE TENTH 
COMMANDMENT 

Exodus XX, i?; Deuteronomy V, 21 

D ISTINGUISH this tenth commandment from the 
preceding nine. 

Ans.—It is so distinguished from all the others 
in the following particulars: (1) In form; they prohibit 
the overt act, this the very desire to act. (2) It is the root 
or base of all the second table of the law, all that part of 
the law that relates to our fellowman. (3) Through 
violation of this commandment one may violate all of 
the preceding ones. Thus there are three distinguishing 
characteristics of the tenth commandment. 

2. Next, give an analysis of this commandment. 

Ans.—I ask your very particular attention (1) to the 
word “ covet,” which means “ desire ”; whether a good 
thing or a bad thing, it means to desire, e.g., “ Thou shalt 
not covet thy neighbour’s wife.” . . . “ Covet the 

best gifts,” Paul says in the New Testament. (2) As 
man from the constitution of his being must desire and 
may desire good and lawful things, this commandment 
does not forbid to covet, but only forbids to covet what 
is thy neighbour’s; the emphatic words are " thy neigh¬ 
bour’s ”—that is, what belongs to somebody else. (3) It 
is sweeping, however, in forbidding to covet anything 
that is thy neighbour’s, whether wife, home, domestic 

257 


258 


EXODUS 


[xx 

servants, or domestic animals; indeed all personal and 
real estate that belongs to his neighbour. (4) As man 
from God’s original commission may marry and acquire 
property, this does not forbid marriage, but it does forbid 
one coveting his neighbour’s wife; nor does it forbid 
the individual ownership of the land, houses, servants, 
domestic animals and other property. On the contrary 
it is based upon the assertion of the neighbour’s right to 
own these things. This commandment could not exist at 
all if your neighbour did not have a right to his own wife, 
to his own home, his own servants, his own cattle and his 
own lands. It does not forbid ownership; it assumes 
ownership. There must be ownership before this com¬ 
mand could come in at all. It simply forbids our lawful 
desire for marriage, home and property to look towards 
our neighbour’s property in any of these things. Here 
you see it is a great mistake to say that this command¬ 
ment forbids acquisitiveness or the accumulation of 
property. It does neither the one nor the other. (5) As 
it forbids even to desire what is another’s, so it forbids 
all unrighteous methods and means of attaining our 
desires in these matters. Now if I know how to an¬ 
alyze a proposition, that is the analysis of that proposi¬ 
tion, and in answering that question, I want you to give 
that analysis item by item. 

3. What are the limitations? 

Ans.—These define or bound a man’s lawful desire for 
a wife, property, and the accumulation of property of 
every kind. (1) We must not so desire property or so 
accumulate it as to invade God’s paramount right. There¬ 
fore, my ownership is not an absolute ownership, but it 
stands good against my neighbour; so far as he is con¬ 
cerned it is my own, but as far as God is concerned, I am 
only His steward. (2) He must not so desire property 


xx] THE TENTH COMMANDMENT 259 

or so accumulate wealth as to harm himself. When this 
desire and the means of its attainment bring about harm 
to the man’s body, or to his soul, or hereafter, he has 
stepped over the bound. (3) This relates to only one of 
the items in the commandment. It says, “ Thou shalt 
not covet thy neighbour’s wife.” So a limitation here is 
that he must not invade the rights of his wife. Suppose 
a man already has a wife, and desires another wife; it vio¬ 
lates the rights of the wife he has. (4) He must not 
so desire to accumulate property as to harm his neigh¬ 
bour; the acquisition must not be done at the expense of 
the neighbour. He has a right to a piece of land, but he 
has no right to covet his neighbour’s piece of land. (5) 
He must not harm society in any of its organized forms. 
God made man social, and society is spoken of as an 
organism, each one of them is a member of the body, and 
whatever harms one will harm all. Now under these five 
limitations there is another limit to what a man may 
desire and what he may acquire. If he does not get over 
on to God’s property, if he does not hurt himself, if he 
does not invade the rights of his wife, if he does not harm 
his neighbour, and if he does not harm society, then 
God has put within him the desire for ownership, and 
God requires him to push that ownership to accumulate 
property. In other words, his desires or accumulations 
become unlawful when they deny God’s paramount own¬ 
ership ; when they harm himself in body or soul, in 
time or in eternity; when they lead him to have more 
than one wife at a time, or to despise that one wife’s 
rights; when he acquires his property, or uses his prop¬ 
erty rights to harm society, its health, purity, or morals. 
I said that this commandment is such alone that a viola¬ 
tion of it may lead to a violation of the whole Decalogue. 
So my next question is: 


260 


EXODUS 


[xx 


4. What scripture proves that? 

Ans.—In I Timothy vi, 10, Paul says, “ The love of 
money is a root of all kinds of evil,” not, “ money is a 
root of all kinds of evil,” but the love of it. Money is 
harmless in itself. But that inordinate desire for money, 
which is out of proportion with reference to our rela¬ 
tions to God, ourselves, our families, our fellowmen, and 
society, that is a root of every kind of evil that can come 
under the whole Ten Words of the law. 

5. Furnish an illustration of each one of the Ten 
Commandments, i.e., how the violation of this com¬ 
mandment, or how this inordinate love of property may 
make a person violate every one of the other nine. 

Ans.—Suppose you take (1) the first commandment. 
I want to read a passage on that from Job xxxi, 24: “ If 
I have made gold my hope, and have said to the fine gold, 
thou art my confidence; if I have rejoiced because my 
wealth was great, and because my hand had gotten much 

. . . [verse 28] this also were an iniquity to be 

punished by the judges; for I should have denied the God 
that is above.” In other words, the first commandment 
is: “ Thou shalt have no other gods beside me.” If I 
substitute, for the one only true God, gold and silver 
and say, “ Thou art my confidence and my hope,” that 
is a violation of the first commandment as it is twice 
expressed in the New Testament, Matthew vi, 24, and 
Luke xvi, 13: “Ye cannot serve God and mammon.” 
Here Mammon is put up as a rival deity and the express 
declaration is that one cannot serve both of them. There¬ 
fore the first commandment is violated by an inordinate 
desire for money. 

(2) We take the second. In Ephesians v, 3-5, and in 
Colossians iii, 5, it is said that covetousness is idolatry, a 
worship of images. The second commandment says, 


xx] THE TENTH COMMANDMENT 261 

“ Thou shalt not make unto thyself any graven images 
to bow down thyself to them, nor to worship them; for I, 
Jehovah, thy God, am a jealous God/’ This kind of 
covetousness is illustrated in the case of the miser, who 
gathers his treasure from his secret box and pours out 
the glittering gold. He looks at it shining, and lets it 
melt through his Ungers . There is the image of the god 
he worships; Mammon is his god; that coined money is 
the image. Therefore, covetousness is idolatry. I told 
you that this tenth commandment was distinguished from 
the others in that a violation of it might be a violation 
of every one of the ten. (3) Let us look at the third, 
which says, “ Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord 
thy God in vain,” that is, “ Thou shalt not use God’s 
name in witnessing a lie.” What was it that Ananias and 
Sapphira did ? That very thing, and they did it through 
covetousness. They lied unto God; they invoked God’s 
name to witness that they paid over to the apostles all 
the money. That is direct and palpable violation through 
the love of money of the third commandment. (4) The 
fourth says, “ Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy.” 
Let me quote a passage (you can think of thousands, but 
here’s one in point) : “ In those days saw I in Judah 
some men treading winepresses on the sabbath, and bring¬ 
ing in sheaves, and lading asses therewith, as also wine, 
grapes, and figs, and all manner of burdens, which they 
brought into Jerusalem on the sabbath day, and I testi¬ 
fied against them in the day wherein they sold victuals. 
There dwelt men of Tyre also therein who brought in fish, 
and all manner of wares, and sold on the sabbath unto 
the children of Judah, and in Jerusalem. Then I con¬ 
tended with the nobles of Judah, and said unto them, 
What evil thing is this ye do, and profane the sabbath 
day ? ” Then he goes on to tell what measures he adopted 


262 


EXODUS 


[xx 

to stop this pursuit of traffic on God’s day. Now the love 
of money prompts hundreds of men here and elsewhere 
to carry on their secular work on the Lord’s day. (5) 
We take the next commandment: “ Honour thy father 
and thy mother.” How many instances can you recall 
of the boy or young man who, in his desire to make 
money, has turned from the counsel of his father and 
the admonition of his mother? Dearer to him is the 
making of money than reverence for his parents. I doubt 
if in many instances any father or mother or wife was 
ever willing for a son to open a saloon, but the son 
goes on and opens it; I doubt if in many instances that 
fathers, mothers or wives ever want the son or husband 
to make money by gambling, and yet they go into the 
gambling den, led on by the desire to get rich quickly, 
knowing that they are wading in the tears of parents, and 
sometimes through their blood. So the love of money 
leads to the violation of that commandment. (6) “ Thou 
shalt not kill.” A pirate on the high seas kills for booty, 
or the highwayman shoots an inoffensive traveller for 
his money. I remember—I shall never forget—the im¬ 
pression made upon my mind by one of the accounts 
of John A. Murrell in which a young South Carolinian 
figured who had come West to invest some money he 
had saved up by hard labour, in order to buy some cheap 
land for his family. He had $900 on his person, and 
while on the road John A. Murrell emerged from some 
woods and made him get down from his horse and divest 
himself of his outer clothes. He then put the pistol to 
his head and killed him. He disembowelled him to make 
him sink and then threw him into the water, and took the 
$900 red with the blood of the murder which he had 
committed. See also the picture of the apostle Judas 
with thirty pieces of silver in his hand, and see Christ 


xx] THE TENTH COMMANDMENT 263 

murdered through this sale; he sold Christ for $15. (7) 
The seventh commandment: “ Thou shalt not commit 

adultery.” The love of money has made debauchery a 
trade, and filled all our cities with houses of shame. (8) 
“ Thou shalt not steal.” Love of money led Achan, when 
he saw a wedge of gold and a goodly Babylonish garment, 
to surreptitiously hide it, and bring defeat on God’s army. 
It prompts the sneak thief to steal your chickens, to pick 
your pocket; it animates the burglar that enters your 
house by night; it looses your horse from the stable and 
leads him out. So the love of money violates that com¬ 
mandment. (9) “ Thou shalt not bear false witness 
against thy neighbour.” They suborned men to bear 
false witness, to testify against Christ. Here comes a 
man who says, “ If you will pay me enough, I will go 
on the stand and swear that he said so and so.” (10) 
Take the tenth commandment itself. As Ahab looked out 
and saw a vineyard (Naboth’s) right close to his own 
property, he “ coveted ” it. It would “ round out ” his 
pocket to get that property, so he bribed (or, rather, his 
wife did for him) a man to swear a lie, and then put 
Naboth to death. You see we have gone through the 
whole of the Decalogue and find it is true that the love 
of money is a root of all kinds of evil. There is no 
evil in the world of which the love of money may not 
become a root. Balaam, the prophet of God, for the 
wages of unrighteousness, lent his holy office to pur¬ 
poses that sought to frustrate God’s kingdom. I spoke 
a while ago on certain limitations that define or bound 
our desires, one of them being that we should not so 
covet as to harm ourselves. Now, I want to look at that 
part of the subject. So the next question is: 

6. How may a man harm himself through the love of 
money ? 


264 EXODUS [xx 

Ans.—I read (i) the case of the Rich Fool (Luke xii, 
15-21), a case very much in point: “ He said unto them, 
Take heed, and keep yourselves from all covetousness; 
for a man's life consisteth not in the abundance of the 
things which he possesseth. And he spake a parable unto 
them saying, The ground of a certain rich man brought 
forth plentifully; and he reasoned with himself, saying, 
What shall I do, because I have not where to bestow my 
fruits? And he said, This will I do: I will pull down 
my barns, and build greater; and there will I bestow all 
my grain and my goods. And I will say to my soul, 
Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; 
take thine ease, eat, drink, be merry. But God said unto 
him, Thou foolish one, this night is thy soul required of 
thee; and the things which thou hast prepared, whose 
shall they be ? ” There was his hurt, even unto death, 
unto the death of his body, the death of his soul, unto 
eternal death. (2) It harms him in this way, viz.: that 
he makes money his enemy instead of his friend. You 
may “ make to yourself friends by means of the mammon 
of unrighteousness ”; or you may make with it enemies 
to yourselves. Now when that self-hurt comes in that 
way, every dollar one acquires becomes his enemy, when 
every beam in his house, every timber in the wall, every 
rafter in the house is a witness against himself. Then 
money has become one’s enemy; then it harms him in 
that it diverts him from the true treasure. Our Lord 
put the two treasures side by side when He said, “ Lay up 
treasures for yourselves in heaven, where thieves do not 
break through and steal and where moth and rust do 
not corrupt.” Now by that treasure he lays aside, he 
divests himself of it in order to gratify his covetousness 
in the other direction, and it is working him harm. 
Again (3) I quote a significant passage from Paul, I 


xx] THE TENTH COMMANDMENT 265 

Timothy vi, 9: “ But they that are minded to be rich 

fall into a temptation and a snare and many foolish and 
hurtful lusts, such as drown men [we are talking about 
harm that comes to himself] in destruction and perdi¬ 
tion. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of 
evil; which some reaching after have been led astray 
from the faith, and have pierced themselves through 
with many sorrows.” When I was a little fellow we had 
a theological dictionary which has now gone out of use; 
it was a very fine old one called “ Buck’s Theological 
Dictionary.” It had a picture of a man condemned to 
death by the Inquisition; they had blindfolded him, and 
behind him was a man and on each side a man, all with 
spear in hand so that the point of it just touched him. 
They would gently touch him with these spear-points, 
and as the blindfolded man moved, one point touched him 
and he made towards the others; first the spear on the 
left and then on the right, and now the spear behind 
would get him, if he stopped. Thus he was forced up 
to the top of a hill with a sharp precipice, and right 
under the precipice was a chariot, a cart, a four-wheeled 
thing with an open body of thick wood, and every few 
inches was a peg with the head of a spear fastened on it, 
and there was a great mass of spear-points standing up. 
They kept making him move on until he had fallen, 
fallen right down on that thing and pierced himself 
through, head, neck, lungs, heart, body, arms, hands, 
legs, feet, etc. Now says Paul, “ They that are minded 
to be rich will fall into temptation and the snare and 
pierce themselves through with many sorrows.” Again 
(4) he hurts himself in that he brings on total bankruptcy, 
Luke xvi. So this love of money is confined in its effects 
to his love for transitory wealth. Says Psalms xlix, “ It 
is certain he can take none of it with him,” and the 


266 


EXODUS 


[xx 

declaration is repeated by Paul. Now this man did not 
stop at death; death does not break the continuity of 
life, but death does stop earthly property which cannot 
cross the river of death; and the very minute that he 
leaves the treasure that he has and he touches the other 
shore, he is wholly bankrupt. Alexander the Great com¬ 
manded his friends when they buried him to let his hands 
be outside of the casket, “ For,” he said, “ I want every¬ 
body to see that I, the king of the world, cannot take a 
thing with me; that my hands are empty.” He hurts 
himself, not only in that bankruptcy, but (5) in the 
fearful finality which is brought upon him. Notice what 
James says about that, James v, 3-6: “Come now, ye 
rich, weep and howl for your miseries that are coming 
upon you. Your riches are corrupted and your gar¬ 
ments are moth-eaten. Your gold and your silver are 
rusted; and their rust shall be for a testimony against 
you, and shall eat your flesh as fire. Ye have laid up 
your treasure in the last days. Behold, the hire of the 
labourers who have mowed the fields, which is of you 
kept by fraud, crieth out; and the cries of them that 
reaped have entered into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth. 
Ye have lived delicately on the earth, and taken your 
pleasure; ye have nourished your hearts in a day of 
slaughter. Ye have condemned, ye have killed the 
righteous one; he doth not resist you,” but in the judg¬ 
ment, God! I told you what the limitations were, and 
one of them was that though coveting was lawful no 
coveting was lawful which harms a man himself. When 
I was a young preacher I asked the Sunday School in the 
First Church at Waco, this general question: 

7. What New Testament scripture shows how much 
money a man may lawfully acquire? 

Ans.—That day, visiting the Sunday School, was the 


xx] THE TENTH COMMANDMENT 267 

famous American, L. Smith, who made an enormous 
fortune in Texas, and then went to Newark, N. J., and 
became a great philanthropist. The question was to 
be answered next Sunday. The old man was a cripple, 
but a good old Baptist, and he hobbled up to me and said, 
“ I won’t be here next Sunday; it is a great question you 
have put to the school, and I would like to know, before I 
go away, the answer.” John said to Gaius, a rich man, 
“ I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper [finan¬ 
cially] even as thy soul prospers.” If your soul won’t 
prosper while you are living in a fine house instead Of a 
cottage, you had better get back to that cottage. If you 
take prosperity of your soul with you, it is no sin to live 
in a palace. If $10,000 will not lead your soul astray, it 
is lawful for you to make $10,000; $1,000,000 is lawfully 
made if your soul still prospers; if you still love God, and 
your fellowmen, you may have $1,000,000,000; yea, 
$100,000,000,000, if you get it right, and it does not inter¬ 
fere with the prosperity of your soul. I will quote the 
charge given by Paul. He comes nearer doing a thing 
just right than anybody I ever heard of. So the next 
question: 

8 . Cite and expound Paul’s charge to the rich. 

Ans.—Now the word “ charge ” here is used in the 
sense of putting a man on his oath. “ Put the rich in this 
present world on oath before God, that they be not high- 
minded, nor have their hopes set on the uncertainty of 
riches, but on God, who giveth us richly all things to 
enjoy; that they do good, that they be rich in good works, 
that they be ready to distribute, willing to communicate 
[as well as to accumulate]; laying up in store for them¬ 
selves a good foundation against the time to come, that 
they may lay hold on the life which is life indeed.” Now 
that is a brave charge given to a rich man: “ See, I put 


268 


EXODUS 


[xx 

you on your oath before God; that you be ready to give/’ 
A great many to whom I go express themselves as being 
greatly in sympathy with the cause I represent, but they 
say that they have made some large investments and they 
have to meet some oncoming obligations; therefore, they 
are not ready. “ That they be willing to contribute,” 
reaches the wealthy, and asks that they do contribute and 
that they be sure in all of their wealth not to make it 
their hope. Job says that is to deny God. 

9. Show how the enormous wealth of Rockefeller and 
Carnegie may do more harm in its distribution than in its 
accumulation. 

Ans.—The enormous wealth in modern times accumu¬ 
lated by questionable methods is wealth that cannot be 
counted; and yet it may well be said that the vast accumu¬ 
lated wealth of Rockefeller and Carnegie may do more 
harm in its distribution than in its accumulation. I show 
two points: (1) Take the twenty millions given to the 
Chicago University. There is a fortified arsenal of un¬ 
sound doctrine for all time to come. You cannot dis¬ 
lodge it, for millions are behind it. They have taken 
millions down into Oklahoma to buy up the lands and the 
interest of that pours into the treasury until they do not 
know how to invest their money and every dollar of it is 
against sound doctrine, against the fundamentals of the 
faith that Mr. Rockefeller himself professes. (2) Carne¬ 
gie has startled the world with a big donation of millions 
and millions and millions, which he says is to pension 
teachers, and not one dollar shall go to any denomina¬ 
tional school. What is the result ? There is a temptation 
among needy schools to throw aside their allegiance to 
the denominations in order to come in and get some of the 
droppings of that pension money. There it stands—$20,- 
000,000, and in the other case $30,000,000, consolidated, 


xx] THE TENTH COMMANDMENT 269 

crystallized, perpetuating until Jesus conies, and the whole 
power of it working against the truth. 

10. Show how society may rightly limit the use of 
wealth. 

Ans.—A man has a right to the acquisition and ac¬ 
cumulation of property, but he is limited by regulations of 
society, i.e., he has a right to put up a beef packery and 
a tannery, but he cannot put it up where the effluvia from 
that tanyard will render the sanitary conditions un¬ 
comfortable to the people who are his neighbours. Sub¬ 
ject to social regulations, then, a man has a right to in¬ 
vest his money, but he cannot so invest it as to become a 
perpetrator of vice. Therefore many societies have risen 
up and said to certain traffic, “ You cannot go into this 
community, for it is interfering with everybody; it de¬ 
bauches; it makes thieves, liars, gamblers, and steals 
away the brains of the people. ,, 

11. Explain how the Jubilee law of Moses opposed 
covetousness of a neighbour’s land. 

Ans.—This law reverted all land back to the original 
owner every fifty years, or in the Jubilee year, and at 
whatever point in the period of the fifty years any trans¬ 
fer was made, the title was limited to the Jubilee year. 
By reverting at this time to the original owner, it was not 
so valuable, as the Jubilee year was approaching and thus 
land was not so much desired. Now you can understand 
the tenth commandment as I have analyzed and illustrated 
it in all its parts. 


XXIII 


THE LAW OF THE ALTAR 

Exodus XX, 18-26 

R EPEAT the three divisions of the Sinai Covenant. 
Ans.—The Decalogue, or God and the Normal 
Man, Exodus xx, 1-17; (2) The Altar, or God 
and the Sinner, Exodus xx, 18-26; (3) The Judgments, 
or God and the State, Exodus xxi, xxii and xxiii. 

2. How much of this covenant has already been abso¬ 
lutely considered ? 

Ans.—The Decalogue, or the first division. 

3. In verses 18-21 we see that the people could not deal 
directly with God in the matter of the Decalogue, and 
could not keep it. Why? 

Ans.—As I quote get the importance of that question 
fixed on your mind. Just as soon as the Ten Command¬ 
ments had been spoken by the voice of God, then follows: 
“ And all the people perceived the thunderings, and the 
lightnings, and the voice of the trumpet, and the moun¬ 
tain smoking; and when the people saw it, they trembled, 
and stood afar off. And they said unto Moses, Speak 
thou with us, and we will hear; but let not God speak 
with us, lest we die. And Moses said unto the people, 
Fear not; for God is come to prove you, and that his 
fear may be before you, that ye sin not. And the people 
stood afar off, and Moses drew near unto the thick dark¬ 
ness where God was.” I repeat the question: Why could 

270 


xx] THE LAW OF THE ALTAR 271 

not the people deal directly with God in the matter of 
the Decalogue, nor keep it? Ans.—(i) This Decalogue 
expressed the obligations of the normal man in his inno¬ 
cent state as originally created, having free and open 
communion with God, as Adam in Paradise before he 
sinned. (2) But these people were sinners, corrupt in 
nature and evil in practice, like Adam in Paradise after 
his sin, therefore fear and shame made God’s approach 
terrible. In His holiness He was to them a consuming 
fire. 

4. What therefore was necessary in order to a con¬ 
summation of a covenant with this holy God? 

Ans.—Some provision of grace by which a sinner 
might approach God without shame, fear and death, and 
so come to an agreement of peace. There could never 
have been a covenant at all if the covenant involved only 
the Decalogue, because the people could not deal directly 
with God in this matter. Those Ten Commandments ex¬ 
pressed the import of man’s obligations in his normal 
state as he was originally created. But now when God 
approached and spoke in an audible voice and the sound 
of the trumpet was heard, the people were filled with 
fear and went afar off and said to Moses, “ You speak 
with us; don’t let God speak with us, lest we die.” 

5. In this connection what one word stands for all 
the law of the sinner’s approach to God? 

Ans.—The word is “altar.” 

6. Why did not Adam in Paradise before he sinned 
need an altar? 

Ans.—Being in God’s image, created in knowledge, 
righteousness and true holiness, there was nothing in 
God’s holiness to cause shame or fear in coming directly 
into God’s presence and communing with Him direct. 
And Adam had no sin to be expiated on an altar. 


jm 


EXODUS 


[xx 

7. If these people could not enter directly into cove¬ 
nant with God in the matter of the Decalogue, nor were 
able to keep it, why then give it to them ? 

Ans.—An absolute and fixed standard of right in all 
man’s relations, a standard holy and just and good in all 
of its parts, and with all of its penal sanctions, would dis¬ 
cover to a sinful man his want of conformity to law, 
whether in nature, desire or in deed. Sin in the light of 
that standard would appear to be sinful. Now that is 
one purpose of giving that law to them, viz.: to discover 
their want of conformity to it. (2) To disclose to man 
his moral inability to atone for sin already committed, 
or to keep from future sin because of his corrupted 
nature. Now it was necessary that that moral inability 
should be brought to light with those people. (3) It 
would thus prepare them to accept a plan of reconcilia¬ 
tion by grace which would both atone for the past, recre¬ 
ate a new nature disposed to obey, and by a perfected 
holiness enable them finally to obey and ultimately bring 
them into perfect conformity with an absolute standard 
of right. The answer, you see, is threefold: (1) To 
make a man see that he is a sinner; (2) To show him his 
moral inability to keep the law; (3) To prepare him for 
a plan of reconciliation to God,—a plan that would atone 
for past sin; a plan that would change his corrupt nature, 
giving him a disposition to obey; a plan that would per¬ 
fect him in holiness so that he would obey, and thus 
ultimately find himself in perfect accord with that law. 
When we come to the New Testament that thought is 
presented this way by the apostle Paul: “ I had not 

known sin except by the law, for by the law is the knowl¬ 
edge of sin.” “ I was getting along all right [thought I 
was alive and all right] but when the commandment 
came, sin revived, and I died. I saw I was a dead man 


THE LAW OF THE ALTAR 


273 


xx ] 

in the light of that law. Then I saw that while with my 
mind I might appreciate the goodness and holiness of 
that law, yet I would find a law in my members that 
would war against this law of my mind and would bring 
me into condemnation.” Again he says, “ The law was 
added because of transgression.” Man had sinned; so 
a law was added; put there to show him he was a sinner, 
and then he says, “ The law was our schoolmaster unto 
Christ,” i.e., our pedagogue unto Christ. So that it 
was never intended that the giving of those Ten Com¬ 
mandments should save a man. They were not expressed 
in that statutory form until man’s nature had become cor¬ 
rupted, so that he didn’t desire to keep them, and on ac¬ 
count of that nature there was a moral inability to keep 
them. It was to be a law of right to him, but not a way 
of life to him. In other words, the “ oughtness ” would 
never die. Now, yesterday, and in eternity, it would 
remain true that a man ought to love God with all his 
heart, and ought to love his neighbour as himself, and if 
he kills he does wrong; if he commits adultery he does 
wrong; if he steals, if he bears false witness, if he pro¬ 
fanes the Sabbath day, if he disobeys his father and his 
mother, he does wrong and eternally the right and wrong 
of that can never be changed. The “ oughtness ” is 
there, but from the standpoint of fallen man, obedience 
to those commandments can never become a way of life 
to him. So when Moses says in that Decalogue, “ Do and 
live ” it was not in hope that any of them would “ do and 
live,” but to show them that if they obtained life they 
must obtain it through a subsequent plan of the covenant, 
and that is what we are now considering, viz.: the Law of 
the Altar. The very words, “ ipsissima verba,” must be 
remembered by every reader, and the answer. 

8 . What the essential elements of the law of a sinner’s 


EXODUS 


274 



approach to God, as represented by the altar of this 
section, and its subsequent developments in the Penta¬ 
teuch ? 

Ans.—(i) A throne of grace, or a place where God 
may be approached. The first constituent element of 
the law of a sinner’s approach to God is a place where he 
may find God, find Him without death. It can be only a 
throne of grace. (2) The next element is a way of ap¬ 
proach to that throne of grace, which is by the altar. 
You can’t get to God on His throne of grace if you 
don’t come to the altar. That is the place where the 
sacrifice of the propitiatory victim is offered, the blood is 
shed, the sacrifice is made. It is an altar of blood and 
of fire. Of blood to show that the life was poured out, 
and of fire to show that the sacrifice was consumed. 
There must not only be a place, which is the first element, 
but there must be a way of approach to that throne of 
grace, which is the altar. (3) There must be a suitable 
offering that will be the ground of that approach, the 
meritorious ground of approach. It must be a suitable 
offering, one that is to die, that is to be consumed under 
the hot wrath of God, and it becomes the ground of ap¬ 
proach to the throne of grace; for it is on the altar that 
the victim of propitiation is sacrificed. (4) There must 
be a mediator through whom this approach is to be made. 
The people said to Moses, “ Don’t let God speak to us; 
we will die. You speak to us. You go and talk to God, 
then come and talk to us; you be the ‘ go-between ’ be¬ 
tween God and us.” So when an offering is to be pre¬ 
sented upon the altar there must be a middleman. A 
mediator is one that stands in the middle and makes con¬ 
tact possible without death between the sinner and God. 
(5) There must be set times to approach God. (6) 
There must be a ritual telling how to approach God, 


THE LAW OF THE ALTAR 


275 


xx] 

prescribing everything, a ritual that will tell all about the 
offering; how old it must be, what kind of an animal it 
must be, what its character must be, when it shall be 
brought, who shall take charge of it when it is brought, 
just how the blood is to be caught, just how that blood 
is to be carried up to the throne of grace, who is to 
take it when it gets there, what he does with it, when he 
disposes of it what the result of it, and when he comes 
out from the place of offering what he says to the 
people. 

9. What the specifications of the altar in this section? 

Ans.—Exodus xx, 24-26: “ An altar of earth thou 

shalt make unto me. . . . And if thou make me an 

altar of stone ”—that is the first specification about the 
altar: it must be of earth or stone; that is the material. 
(2) The second specification, verse 25 : “ If thou make me 
an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stones; 
for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted 
it.” It must be an altar not smooth nor arranged with 
man’s skill. It isn’t intended that this altar which is the 
way of approach to God shall have any excellence in it 
that a man can impart to it at all. A man would naturally 
say, “ I will build it of gold and I will cover it with the 
most beautiful carvings.” He would want to highly orna¬ 
ment it, and he would want to glorify himself in how he 
had fixed up that altar. It is an altar of extreme sim¬ 
plicity. They could either gather up the dirt and make 
the altar, or they might pick up the stones just as they 
were lying around and pile them up, leaving space 
enough to put a victim on it. But they must not go to a 
quarry and dig up stones, and then shape and fit them 
together beautifully, when they were shaped. None of 
their skill must be in it. But why should that altar be 
of earth or stone ? Why not of wood ? A big fire was to 


276 


EXODUS 


[xx 

be kindled on that altar. It must be of non-combustible 
material. A man once went around the world, thinking 
he had learned everything the world could tell him, and 
when he got back in sight of his home he wanted to light 
his pipe, and he asked a little negro to bring him a coal 
of fire. The negro first placed some ashes in his hand 
and put the coal of fire on top of the ashes; and the man 
acknowledged that he had learned something right at his 
home from this little negro. The ashes intervening be¬ 
tween the fire and the hand kept the fire from burning it. 
Now this altar, as a big fire is to be kindled upon it, must 
be non-combustible. (3) “ Neither shalt thou go up by 
steps unto mine altar, that thy nakedness be not un¬ 
covered thereon.” The altar was to be of considerable 
size and height, and as huge victims were to be placed 
on it, it naturally occurred to man, “ Let us make a 
couple of steps here; when we carry wood and the vic¬ 
tims to lay on top of the altar, or on top of the wood, we 
will want to step up.” God says, “ You must not do it. 
Slope the ground up on one side.” It must be a sloping 
approach, and not even the ankle of the man as he goes 
up must be exposed, as would be, if the approach was 
made by way of steps. The robe that he wears must go 
clear to the ground, and going up that slope no part of his 
person was to be exposed. These three specifications, 
then, viz.: that it must be of earth or stone; that it must 
not be hewn stone; that it must not be approached by steps. 
These are designated not merely to show that the altar 
was exceedingly simple, but that it was an altar in which 
the man as an artisan, or as one approaching it, must not 
appear. The altar is an appointment of God . (4) The 

last specification about it is set forth in the latter part 
of verse 24: “ In every place where I record my name I 
will come unto thee and bless thee.” The altar must be 


xx] THE LAW OF THE ALTAR 277 

a place where God’s presence is, and where He comes to 
bless. 

We commenced with the statement that there must be 
an appointed place and time where God may be found. 
Who establishes that place? God does. Jacob is going 
along, travelling away from home in exile, and in the night 
God comes. Next morning he says, “ Surely God was 
in this place, and I didn’t know it. And God was here to 
bless me, because in my vision He said He would bless 
me, and He was here to show me that there was a stair¬ 
way that connected earth with heaven.” And Jacob built 
an altar there. The altar must be where God’s presence 
is; must be of non-combustible material, earth or unhewn 
stone; must not be shaped by the cunning skill of man. 
Its approach must not be up steps; in lifting the robe not 
even the tip of his toe or his ankle should be visible as 
the priest goes up. 

io. Under this section, what two classes of offerings 
are to go on that altar ? 

Ans.—Verse 24: “Thou shalt sacrifice thereon thy 
burnt-offerings and thy peace-offerings.” These are the 
two great classifications of offerings. One is propitia¬ 
tory, an offering to expiate sin. Now the other, the 
thank-offering or eucharist (we call the Lord’s Supper 
the eucharist because there is a giving of thanks in it) 
is an offering with the giving of thanks. But you will 
observe that while two general classes of offerings must 
go on that altar there is an order in which they must go 
on it. Don’t you dare approach God with a thank-offer¬ 
ing first. There is no value in a thank-offering that is 
not preceded by a blood-offering, because peace is se¬ 
cured by the blood and the peace-offering is an expres¬ 
sion of gratitude for the expiation of sin. Take the first 
case of an altar that was ever erected on earth; Cain and 


278 


EXODUS 


[xx 

Abel came before God in a place where God was to be 
present; both came by an offering, by an offering on 
that altar; Cain brought a thank-offering, and that is 
all he brought; and God indignantly rejected it. Abel 
brought not only a peace-offering, but the sin-offering 
first, the firstling of his flock. The two classes of 
offerings, then, are burnt-offering and peace-offering; 
burnt-offering first; the other second and consequen¬ 
tial. 

11. Now in these offerings, what kind of victims must 
be offered? 

Ans.—Offerings of the flock and herds, clean animals. 
That is expressed in verse 24: “ Thy sheep and thy 

oxen ”; a sheep, a goat, or an ox, a calf, cow or bullock. 
It must be one of those kinds. They could not offer a 
lamb; they could not offer a tiger, or a lion. Here are 
the characteristics of the offerings: they must chew the 
cud and divide the hoof. A camel could not be offered, 
though he chews the cud he divides not the hoof. But the 
goat, the sheep, and the ox all divide the hoof and chew 
the cud; they are clean animals. 

12. Show the presence of the six essential elements 
cited above in the first altar that ever was erected; that 
will answer the question: How were the patriarchs 
saved? Did they have any idea of Christ’s coming as a 
sacrifice for sin? By their animal sacrifices did they ex¬ 
hibit faith in a coming Redeemer? If not, just what 
was the object of those sacrifices? 

Ans.—Those sacrifices were to typify the coming Re¬ 
deemer. A man who could not look through the type 
and see the antitype didn’t have the faith. If he simply 
brought the type and stopped at the bullock or the goat, 
then Paul in Hebrews says to him, “ It was impossible 
for the blood of sheep and bullocks and goats to take 


xx] THE LAW OF THE ALTAR 279 

away sin. You must go beyond this ceremony, this 
symbol, this type. You must look to the One that it 
points to, by faith.” By faith Abel did that; and he was 
saved just like you are, by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, 
the coming Messiah; only he did not see Him as you 
see Him; He had not come, but Abel looked through the 
type to the antitype, the Saviour. “ Abraham saw my 
day,” says Jesus, “and rejoiced.” Now my question: 
Show the presence of the six essential elements. While 
I repeat these from Genesis iv, you see if in the 3d, 4th, 
and 5th verses, you can locate them: (1) the throne of 
grace, or a place where God is to be approached; (2) the 
altar, or a way by which to approach Him; (3) a suit¬ 
able offering, or the ground on which they approach 
Him; (4) A mediator, through whom He is to be ap¬ 
proached; (5) a set time for approaching Him; (6) a 
ritual telling how to approach Him. Do you see those 
six things there? We find, first, the place, the throne of 
grace. When Adam sinned and was expelled from the 
garden, God sent an angel with a blazing sword, and at 
the east of the garden was placed an altar by which Adam 
might approach God; a place where God might be found 
on a throne of grace. Next it says, “ In the process of 
time.” There you have the appointed time. It does not 
say just exactly what time, but “ in process of time.” 
Then you have (1) the ritual, telling how to do things, 
as indicated certainly in these verses; (2) When to 
bring the offering; (3) They brought it to the right 
place; (4) One brought the right kind of offering; the 
ritual told him that; (5) He put it on the right place, the 
altar; the ritual told him that; (6) Where is the mediator? 
We discover that this way: Who in patriarchal times, be¬ 
fore the Mosaic law was established, had the priesthood? 
The father, the head of the family, was the priest of the 


280 


EXODUS 


[xx 

family, and if there was no head man to be the priest, then 
the one having the progeniture was the priest. When a 
man is off to himself, and acting to himself as Jacob 
was, he is the head of his house. Job acted as mediator 
in offering those sacrifices mentioned at the end of his 
book. To get that mediator fixed in your mind, I quote 
it, Job xlii, 7, 8: “ After Jehovah had spoken these words 
unto Job, Jehovah said to Eliphaz the Temanite, My 
wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two 
friends; for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is 
right, as my servant Job hath. Now, therefore, take unto 
you seven bullocks and seven rams, and go to my serv¬ 
ant Job, and offer up for yourselves a burnt-offering; 
and my servant Job shall pray for you; for him will I ac¬ 
cept, that I deal not with you after your folly; for ye 
have not spoken of me that which is right, as my servant 
Job hath.” In other words, “ You can’t come before me 
direct; for the way you talk you must have a medi¬ 
ator. Job shall be your priest and shall intercede for 
you.” 

Let us look at Genesis viii, 20: “ And Noah builded 
an altar unto Jehovah, and took of every clean beast, 
and of every clean bird, and offered burnt-offerings on 
the altar. And Jehovah smelled the sweet savour; and 
Jehovah said in his heart, I will not again curse the 
ground any more for man’s sake.” We are looking for 
the six essentials: (1) The altar is there and the right 
kind of altar: “ And in the second month, on the seven 
and twentieth day of the month, the earth was dry and 
God commanded Noah to go forth from the ark, and 
Noah went forth, and builded an altar,”—a great de¬ 
liverance accomplished here. Notice all through the 
flood that the seventh day is recognized. It is all gov¬ 
erned by weeks. The birds are sent out at the inter- 


THE LAW OF THE ALTAR 


281 ' 


xx] 

val of seven days; (2) It was an appointed time; (3) 
You have the mediator, Noah, acting for all the family. 
The altar, the offering, the indication of the ritual in the 
selection of all these things, the plans and the kind of 
offering, all are there; and God is there, because that 
verse says that God smelled the sweet savour and said in 
His heart, etc. The first essential was a place where God 
could be found—the throne of grace. We know that 
this throne of grace continues under the new covenant: 
“ Let us come boldly before the throne of grace that we 
may obtain mercy and help in every time of need.” But 
there is this change of the place, it is not located at Jeru¬ 
salem or Gerizim; not in this mountain or that—but 
God is a Spirit under the new covenant. Any spot where 
you stand, any place where you lie down, where you 
breathe, God is there. You yourselves are your own 
priests; He has made you a kingdom of priests. You do 
not have to offer sin-offerings; one Sin-Offering has been 
offered for you. You offer the sacrifice of praise, prayer, 
and contribution,—spiritual sacrifices. Whenever you 
can distinguish between the Old and New Covenant you 
have learned a great deal of theology. < 

Notice about the place. One of the most gracious 
promises of God is that He will appoint a place and He 
says, speaking to Solomon, when Solomon built Him a 
house, “ Mine eyes shall be there, I shall see it; mine 
ear shall be there, mine omnipotence, my heart shall be 
there; my love.” One of the greatest sermons Spurgeon 
ever preached was on that passage of Scripture. And 
the New Testament says, “ Where two or three of you are 
gathered together in my name, I will be with you.” 
Wherever a number of God’s people covenant themselves 
into a congregation, each several building groweth up 


282 EXODUS [xx 

into a holy temple for the habitation of God through the 
Holy Spirit. 

13. What parts of the Pentateuch are but developments 
of the altar division of the covenant? 

Ans.—Look for the answer in previous chapters. 


XXIV 


GOD AND THE STATE; THE STATE AND THE 
CITIZEN; THE PROMISES AND THE RATI¬ 
FICATION OF THE COVENANT 

Exodus XXI, i—XXIV, 8 

W HAT the lesson and the themes? 

Ans.—Lesson: Exodus xxi, i-xxiv, 8. 

Themes: (i) God and the State; and the State 
and the Citizen, xxi, i-xxiii, 19. 
(2) The Promises of the Covenant, 
xxiii, 20-33. 

(3) The Ratification of the Covenant, 
xxiv, 1-8. 

Having considered Part I of the Covenant, the Deca¬ 
logue, or God and the Normal Man, and Part II, the 
Altar, or God and the Sinner, we now consider Part III, 
The Judgments, or God and the State, and the State and 
the Citizen. This lesson is contained in Exodus xxi, xxii, 
xxiii. 

2. What the name of section xxi, i-xxiii, 19? 

Ans.—This section is called the Judgments, or De¬ 
crees. 

3. What the book of the Covenant, and what may it 
be called? 

Ans.—The whole book of the Covenant, i.e., from 
Exodus xix, i-xxiv, 8, in its three parts and in its ratifi¬ 
cation, may well be called the Constitution of the Nation 

283 


<• V 


284 


EXODUS [xxi-xxiv 


of Israel; and all subsequent legislation in the Pentateuch 
is but statutes developed from this constitution. The 
United States has a written constitution; all the legisla¬ 
tion of Congress must be simply enlargements or develop¬ 
ments of the fundamental principles contained in that 
constitution. 

4. How is God recognized in this section? 

Ans.—He is the author of the state, as He is the 
author of its antecedents,—the family and the tribe. 

5. What results from this origin of the state? 

Ans.—God’s providential government over the na¬ 
tions, counted as units, and their responsibility to 
Him. 

6. How does Paul put it ? 

Ans.—In Romans xiii, 1-7, he says: “The powers 
that be are ordained of God. Therefore he that resisteth 
the power, withstandeth the ordinance of God; and they 
that withstand shall receive to themselves judgment. For 
rulers are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. 
And wouldst thou have no fear of the power? do that 
which is good, and thou shalt have praise from the same; 
for he is a minister of God to thee for good. But if thou 
do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the 
sword in vain; for he is a minister of God, an avenger for 
wrath to him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs 
be in subjection not only because of the wrath, but also 
for conscience’ sake. For for this cause ye pay tribute 
also; for they are ministers of God’s service, attending 
continually upon this very thing. Render to all their 
dues; tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom 
custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.” 
In I Timothy Paul puts it this way: “ I exhort there¬ 
fore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, interces¬ 
sions, thanksgivings, be made for all men; for kings and 


285 


xxi-xxiv] GOD AND THE STATE 

all that are in high places; that we may lead a tranquil 
and quiet life in all godliness and gravity. This is good 
and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; who 
would have all men to be saved, and come to the knowl¬ 
edge of the truth.” The powers, then, must be respected 
and honoured, and must be prayed for by those having 
the good of society at heart, I Timothy ii, 1-4. 

7. The extent of God’s government over the nations 
and proof from Paul and Daniel? 

Ans.—It is absolute in authority and universal in 
scope; so that the ruler or state must perish that despises 
God, as Paul says in Acts xvii, 24-31: “ God hath de¬ 
termined . . . the bounds of their habitation and 

decreed that they should seek after him.” Daniel puts 
it more strongly in Daniel iv, 10-37, especially verses 17, 
25, 34, 35, 37, where it is affirmed that God holds a 
nation responsible just as He holds an individual respon¬ 
sible, and that the ruler who does not know God puts 
himself on a level with the beast, and that he must be 
disciplined until he does know that the Most High ruleth 
over the nations of the world, and that the inhabitants of 
the earth are but as grasshoppers in His sight. 

8. From what additional source arises the state’s juris¬ 
diction over the citizen? 

Ans.—We have just discussed the authority of God 
over the state. Now the authority of the state over 
the citizen, apart from God’s having ordained it, arises 
also from the social nature of man. He is not independ¬ 
ent of other men but co-dependent with them. The ties 
which bind him to his feMowmen are natural, inherent, 
indissoluble, and cannot be despised with impunity; so 
that he cannot be self-centred and apart. 

9. What the particular form of state government or¬ 
ganized at Sinai and its subsequent changes? 


286 


EXODUS 


[xxi-xxiv 

Ans.—This particular Jewish state was theocratic in 
form, God Himself was the king of the nation, and in 
visible symbol dwelt among them. But keep the etymol¬ 
ogy of certain words in your mind, viz.: theocracy, aris¬ 
tocracy, democracy. That form of government estab¬ 
lished over the Jewish nation at Sinai was theocratic, i.e., 
God was the ruler. There were changes in the form of 
this national government in subsequent ages. The first 
change took place in the days of Samuel, when the people 
rejected God as governor and selected, after the man¬ 
ner of the nations, a man to be their ruler, I Samuel viii, 
4-22. This was the establishment of a monarchial form 
of government, not theocratic; it was thus changed from 
a theocracy to a monarchy. Subsequently it perished 
(II Kings xxv) and the form of government became in 
the days of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Zechariah, a mixture of 
democratic, aristocratic, and the priestly. That is to 
say, Zerubbabel was governor, Joshua was priest, and the 
heads of the tribes were the rulers. This mixture con¬ 
tinued until under Herod the Great it again became a 
kingdom, a monarchy, and from that time it passed into 
a provincial government under Roman procurators. 
Those were the changes in the government; then upon 
the destruction of Jerusalem they were a scattered people 
without a king, without an ephod, without a priest, with¬ 
out a temple, without sacrifices, and with no national 
government; and they continue so until this day. 

10. Our present section (Exodus xxi, i-xxiii, 10) es¬ 
tablishes the general principles on which the state shall 
deal with what matters? 

Ans.—(1) With property in slaves, xxi, 1-11; (2) The 
sanctity of human life, or criminal law, xxi, 12-36; (3) 
With other kinds of property, xxii, 1-15; (4) With the 
stranger, the widow, the orphan and the poor, xxii, 21-27; 


xxi-xxiv] GOD AND THE STATE 287 

xxiii, 5, ii; (5) With cases of seduction, xxii, 16, 17; 
(6) With sins against nature, xxii, 19, that mate man 
with the brute, disregarding the distinction between man 
and beast; (7) With the rights of neighbour or enemy in 
the matter of his domestic animals going astray, or found 
in suffering, xxiii, 4, 5; (8) With false testimony and 
bribery, xxiii, 1-3, 7-9; (9) With sins against the first 
commandment, i.e., making sacrifices to others than Je¬ 
hovah, xxii, 20; xxiii, 13; (10) Sins of necromancy, xxii, 
18, i.e., wizards or witches that seek to find out the 
future from the dead or from other sources, and not 
depending on God for revelation; (11) Sins against 
rulers, xxii, 28: “ Thou shalt not curse the rulers of the 
people,” xxiii, 10, 11, and of the weekly Sabbaths, xxiii, 
12; (12) With God’s rights to His firstfruits of the fam¬ 
ily, the harvest, the herd, and the flock, xxii, 29-39; (13) 
The three annual festivals, xxiii, 14-19; (14) With cases 
of eating blood, xxii, 31. Man was not allowed to eat 
meat with blood in it, for the blood is the life thereof. He 
could eat no meat from which the blood had not first been 
drained; if an animal died and the blood still in him, he 
must not eat of that animal; if a wild beast had killed an 
animal and the blood remained in it he could not eat that 
which was slain of the beasts. This section shows that 
God gives the state power to deal with these fifteen 
questions; it is not God but the state dealing with them. 
If one violated the Sabbath day, the state could put him 
to death; if he made a sacrifice to another god, the state 
could put him to death; if he stole a man and put him 
into slavery, the state could put him to death. 

11. What is evident from the scope and variety of 
these cases? 

Ans.—From the variety and scope of these judgments 
it is evident that a theocratic state is a union of church 


288 


EXODUS 


[xxi-xxiv 

and state, the state having jurisdiction over religious 
matters, as well as civil, its magistrates and courts being 
charged with the responsibility of enforcing under penal¬ 
ties duties toward God as well as duties toward man and 
beast. 

12. What the conditions of success in a theocratic 
government ? 

Ans.—These are evident as follows: (i) God alone 
must legislate; (2) God must be present as an oracle to 
settle vexing questions; as an interpreter of law; as om¬ 
niscient to read the heart back of the covert act; as om¬ 
nipotent to enforce the law; and as infinitely holy, just and 
merciful to insure the right legislation and right ad¬ 
ministration of the legislation; (3) The people must 
have the heart and will to obey every requirement of 
His law. If you take away these conditions, a theocratic 
government is a failure. 

13. What the hazards under present conditions? 

Ans.—The hazards, under the present conditions, are 

that the priest may assume the functions of deity, the 
legislator to define religion, the oracle to interpret it 
and then call on the state to enforce it. Since he has not 
the holiness, justice and mercy of God, nor His wisdom 
and omniscience, the state may thus become the slave of 
superstition, priestcraft and irreligion, and the people the 
victims of its tyranny. These conditions are when the 
people’s hearts are not right toward God and when they 
are not disposed to obey Him. 

14. Cite instances where these hazards have been real¬ 
ized. 

Ans.—History records many instances of just such 
priestly usurpation of powers with ruinous results to 
the people. The whole Romanist hierarchy from its 
establishment down to the present time is an illustration. 


289 


xxi-xxiv] GOD AND THE STATE 

The Pope claims to be God’s vicar, in the place of the 
Holy Spirit; he claims the power to interpret the law; 
to change the law; he claims to have the two keys and 
two swords ; to keep you out of the church on earth and 
out of heaven hereafter; to inflict upon you ecclesiastical 
and state punishment. Those are the instruments, the 
swords and the keys; the result is that they have deter¬ 
mined what is religion, and what they have defined to be 
religion is not God’s religion. They claim to be the 
oracles of God; to have sole power to interpret that law, 
and if you vary a hair’s breadth from what they have said 
is religion, off goes your head; and in their search 
for evidence they have established the Inquisition that 
makes domiciliary visits, investigating family life, put¬ 
ting spies over the most thoughtless expressions, and 
they claim to arrest and try them, and when they have 
tried them to call upon the state to execute. The blood¬ 
iest pages of history are those of the Romanist usurpation 
in Spain, in France, in Italy, in Bohemia, in the Low 
Countries, in the days of Alva, in all the South Ameri¬ 
can states and in Mexico. 

Not only is that true, but there were other denomina¬ 
tions expressing a union of church and state and with 
the same powers somewhat modified. When the Puri¬ 
tans came over in the Mayflower they established a 
theocracy; their preachers prescribed everything they 
should do; and according to a statement which has 
been current, a man was punishable by a fine and by im¬ 
prisonment if he was found kissing his wife on Sunday. 
And they pushed their jurisdiction to such an extent that 
they destroyed the liberty of conscience, whipped Bap¬ 
tist preachers, banished Roger Williams, sold out under 
forced sale or hasty auction the choice acres of Baptist 
farms and property in order to get money to build meet- 


290 


EXODUS 


[xxi-xxiv 

ing houses for another denomination, and when that Bap¬ 
tist father, Isaac Backus, went to John Adams, Presi¬ 
dent of the United States Continental Congress, and 
asked him to use his influence to force Massachusetts to 
allow liberty of conscience, he said, “ You might as 
well expect rivers to run upstream, and the ocean to dry 
up and the sun to quit shining as to expect to repeal 
Massachusetts’ law on that subject.” 

15. How does the New Testament hedge against these 
hazards? 

Ans.—In two ways: (1) By clearly distinguishing 
between what belongs to God and what belongs to 
Caesar, rendering unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s 
and unto God those that are His; (2) Especially by its 
form of church government. There was to be no pro¬ 
vincial church government, no district, county, state, 
national church government; no hierarchy, but each par¬ 
ticular congregation was the Church of Jesus Christ and 
having final jurisdiction over its own matters. While 
there might be district associations, conventions, state 
or national, for voluntary co-operation, they were not 
appellate courts over the churches, and hence it would 
be impossible for the union of church and state with 
the Baptist Church involved. But this New Testament 
hedging was evaded : (1) By establishing a Papal form 
of government, an autocracy; (2) A prelatical form; 
as, the Church of England; (3) A Federal form of 
Government, like the Presbyterian. 

16. What offences in this section called for capital 
punishment ? 

Ans.—They say that you may determine the civiliza¬ 
tion of a people by its code as to blood. If they put 
people to death for every kind of offence it is a bloody 
code; if only for a few great offences, it is not a bloody 


291 


xxi-xxiv ] GOD AND THE STATE 

code. Note in this lesson that there are six causes by 
which capital punishment could be administered: (i) 
For sacrificing to another God; as long as the theocratic 
government was in vogue a man must be put to death for 
sacrificing to other gods than Jehovah, because it was 
treason—treason against the state because it belongs to 
somebody else; (2) Necromancy; that is a sin against 
God, in that it seeks to get at the secrets of the future 
from another source than God’s revelation: “ Thou shalt 
not suffer a wizard or a witch to live”; (3) Bestial 
crimes; sins against nature, where the man would mate 
with a brute; (4) Stealing a man for slavery; stealing 
a man’s very life away from him that he may make a 
slave of him. Now there are ways discussed in this 
section by which you could be enslaved. I have not space 
to go into their details; but they could not steal a man 
and make a slave of him. The death penalty would al¬ 
ways be administered in the case of what is called “ slave¬ 
dealing,” so largely carried on by the New England 
States, where as many as 250 ships from a New England 
town were engaged in the slave trade, and the wealth of 
a great many of those people up there to-day was derived 
from stealing slaves from Africa and selling them to the 
West Indies and to the United States. (5) Murder or 
homicide that resulted from criminal negligence; (6) In 
Exodus xxi, 17, it says, “ He that curseth his father or 
his mother, shall surely be put to death.” So here is 
another offence calling for capital punishment; and a 
very remarkable piece of legislation comes into develop¬ 
ment of that principle. I remember once telling it to 
Judge Harrison in Waco, the father of my present wife. 
It provides that if a father or mother shall bring a child 
to the magistrate and say that he is incorrigible; that 
they cannot do anything with him; he has no respect for 


292 


EXODUS 


[xxi-xxiv 

them; does not obey them; that he is going to be a ter¬ 
ror ; he will be awful to the state; they thus bringing him 
before the magistrate, making that affidavit, that child 
must be stoned to death by the state. I read that to 
General Harrison and he said, “ Dr. Carroll, you know 
you would never take your boy there.” While I do not 
think I would, I certainly have seen some specimens in 
my time that would have been brought up with great ad¬ 
vantage by the state. (7) Later on we will come to 
another which is not in this section. A man went out on 
a Sabbath day to get sticks to make a fire to cook some 
breakfast, and he was put to death. “ Thou shalt do no 
labour on the Sabbath day.” “ You must make provision 
for that day beforehand.” There are no exceptions but 
those of mercy, judgment and of necessity. 

17. In what judgments do the elements of mercy and 
love to man and beast appear? 

Ans.—Consideration shown (1) to a stranger; (2) to 
a widow; (3) to an orphan; (4) to the poor; (5) to 
animals. They might charge interest for money lent to 
any Hebrew brother that was well-to-do, but if he was 
poor they could not charge interest lending him money. 
Then this reference to the poor in connection with the 
land, which was to lie every seventh year idle, and of 
course where land was devoted to the culture of cereals 
like wheat and barley there would be a voluntary crop 
that year. They were not allowed to harvest that crop at 
all, but the poor people had the right under this law to 
enter that field and use that seventh-year voluntary crop. 
It also applies to the poor in this, viz.: that if he had 
pawned his cloak, or outer garment, which constituted his 
bed by night, the pawnbroker was not allowed to keep 
that garment in pawn overnight, or that man would not 


xxi-xxiv] GOD AND THE STATE 293 

have a bed to sleep on; it must be restored to him when 
night came. 

18. What the promises of the covenant? 

Ans.—In xxiii, 20-33 are three: (1) That the angel 
of God’s presence should be with them, and would be 
their guide to show them how to go and to be their guard 
to preserve and guard, and would discomfit their ene¬ 
mies on the way to and in the land where they were 
going. That was one of the great promises of the cove¬ 
nant. The presence of the angel of the Lord was mani¬ 
fest in the pillar of cloud by day and the fire by night, 
and by His speaking as an oracle when any trouble was 
brought up to Him, and a solution asked. (2) That God 
would bless their bread and drink, that is, He would give 
them food and He would give them life. “ You shall 
not be exposed to hunger nor to sickness.” This angel 
would see to it that a table was set before them; that in 
the wilderness their shoes should not wear out; that their 
clothes should not wax old; that there should be no sick 
people in the camp. What a tremendous blessing that 
was! (3) That He would give them all the territory set 
forth in the original promises to Abraham, extending 
from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates, and from 
Gilead on the left bank of the Jordan to the Mediterra¬ 
nean Sea. Those are the three elements of the great 
promises of the covenant. He had to drive their ene¬ 
mies—the Amorites, Hittites, Perizites, Jebusites and the 
others that held the land—all out, but not all at once, for 
they would not be able to occupy the land, but, mark you, 
just as they were able to develop the resources of the 
country. 

19. Describe step by step the ratification of the cove¬ 
nant. 

Ans.—In xxiv, 1-8, it is treated. Here are the statutes: 


294 


EXODUS 


[xxi-xxiv 

(i) All the words of the book of the covenant, that is, 
the moral law, the altar law and the state law, were 
repeated very carefully by most of the people; (2) Then 
a copy of them was reduced to writing; (3) An altar 
and pillars were erected according to the requirements 
given in the twentieth chapter; (4) Two kinds of offer¬ 
ings were offered on the altar, (a) burnt-offerings, ex¬ 
piatory, of blood and fire, and (b) the peace-offerings, 
or the eucharist, thank-offerings thus were made; (5) 
The disposition of the blood,—one half of the blood 
flowing from these victims sacrificed was put into basins 
and set aside; the other half was to be sprinkled upon that 
altar, and thus the blood of the covenant was put upon the 
altar; (6) This covenant which has been spoken and 
written is now carefully read by Moses, item by item, 
—all of them in the hearing of all the people, and they 
again solemnly agree to make every obligation prescribed 
for them in that covenant; (7) The sprinkling of the 
blood on the people. That half that had been set aside 
in basins, the priests and the Levites took charge of, and 
with bunches of hyssop moved among the people in 
every direction (all the Levites engaged in it, as they 
were afterwards established), and sprinkled that blood on 
all the people. That was the ratification of the cove¬ 
nant. 

I have tried to make the reader see clearly this book of 
the covenant, beginning at Exodus xix, where was the 
introduction, the proposition made to have a covenant, 
and the people’s agreement to go into it, then the prepara¬ 
tion for entering it by ratification; next the three parts 
of the covenant; (a) The Decalogue, or Ten Words, 
God’s relation to the normal man; (b) the law of the 
Altar, or approach to God on the part of the sinner; (c) 


295 


xxi-xxiv] GOD AND THE STATE 

The state and God, and then the state and the citizen. 
I have tried to make you see these points very clearly. 
Then the promises bound up in that covenant, and just 
exactly with what solemnity step by step that covenant 
was ratified; and that this was peculiarly a covenant 
made with the nation regarded as a unit. 


XXV 


THE FEAST OF THE COVENANT; THE ASCENT 
OF MOSES AND JOSHUA INTO THE MOUN¬ 
TAIN; THE BREACH OF THE COVENANT; 
THE COVENANT RESTORED BUT MODIFIED 

Exodus XXIV , 9—XXXIV, 35 

W HAT is this lesson and its outline? 

Ans.—The lesson is from the twenty-fourth 
chapter of Exodus, 9th verse, to the end of 
that chapter, with a mere glance at the next seven chap¬ 
ters, xxv to xxxi, and then all of chapters xxxii, 
xxxiii and xxxiv; it covers three full chapters, nearly all 
of another chapter, and a glance at seven other chapters. 
I will explain to you about that glance as we go along. 
The outline of the lesson is: 

I. The Feast of the Covenant, xxiv, 9-11. 

II. The Ascent of Moses and Joshua into the Moun¬ 
tain, Why and How Long, xxiv, 12-xxxi, 18. 

III. The Breach of the Covenant, xxii, 1-6. 

IV. The Covenant Restored but Modified, xxxii, 7- 
xxxiv, 35. 

We commence at the first item of the outline, viz.: 

The Feast of the Covenant .—That part of the lesson 
is the twenty-fourth chapter and commences at the 9th 
verse and extends to the nth. Let us read that: “ Then 
went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu [two sons 
of Aaron], and seventy of the elders of Israel ”; and 

296 


xxiv-xxxiv] FEAST OF THE COVENANT 297 

we learn from the 17th verse that Joshua, the minister or 
servant of Moses, was along. That makes seventy-five 
persons. “ And they saw the God of Israel; and there 
was under his feet as it were a paved work of sapphire 
stone, and as it were the very heaven for clearness. And 
upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his 
hand; and they beheld God and did not eat and drink.” 
That is the feast of the covenant. 

I. THE FEAST OF THE COVENANT 

2. What the custom after ratifying a covenant and an 
example from Genesis? 

Ans.—Nearly always just after a covenant was rati¬ 
fied the parties to the covenant partook together of a 
meal to show their fraternity and communion. The 
Genesis example you will find where Laban and Jacob 
made a covenant. The covenant is prepared, they agree 
to enter into a covenant, they put up a token of the cove¬ 
nant, they build an altar, they make sacrifices, they ratify 
the covenant in the blood of that sacrifice. Then they sit 
down and eat a meal together, which is the feast of the 
covenant. You will find all of that in the Genesis ac¬ 
count of Laban and Jacob. So here a covenant having 
been proposed, an agreement to enter into it made, a 
preparation for it, the terms of the covenant given as 
stated in their threefold characters, that covenant care¬ 
fully read, an altar erected, sacrifices offered, the blood 
of the covenant sprinkled upon the altar and upon the 
people, and so ratified, then follows this feast of the 
covenant. 

3. What the provisions used at the feast in such 
cases? 

Ans.—The provisions are the bodies of the peace- 


298 


EXODUS 


[xxiv-xxxiv 

offering. There are two offerings, viz.: the burnt-offer¬ 
ing, which has to be burned up, then the eucharistic or 
thank-offering. That thank-offering furnishes the ma¬ 
terial of the feast after the covenant is ratified. 

4. Who the representatives at this feast with God and 
a New Testament analogy? 

Ans.—The representatives here are: First, Moses, then 
his servant Joshua, his army chief; second, the high priest 
and his two sons—that is five; and third, the seventy 
elders of Israel. All Israel did not meet God and partake 
of a feast, but the representatives of Israel in the persons 
of Moses, Joshua, Aaron and his two sons, and the 
seventy elders, who meet God and partake of this feast. 
Now the New Testament analogy is that the Lord’s 
Supper which was to memorialize the sacrifice of Christ 
was participated in by representatives of the church, the 
apostles. The apostles were there, but not there as indi¬ 
viduals. They represented the church just as they repre¬ 
sented the church in receiving the commission, so that it 
was simply a church observance even at the time of its 
institution. 

5. What the communion in this feast and the New 
Testament analogy? 

Ans.—The communion is not the communion between 
Moses, Aaron and the elders, that is, it is not a com¬ 
munion with each other, but it is a communion with God, 
and the New Testament analogy is as Paul expresses in 
his first letter to the Corinthians: “ The cup of blessing 
which we bless, is it not a communion or participation of 
the blood of Christ ? ” and yet how often people mis¬ 
represent the idea of that communion, as when A, B and 
C commune together to show their fellowship for each 
other, or a man's communing to show his fellowship for 
his wife. The word means “ participation ” and the one 


xxiv-xxxiv] FEAST OF THE COVENANT 299 

in whom is the participation is God; “ The loaf which 
we bless, is it not a participation, the communion of the 
body of Jesus ?” So here these representatives of all 
Israel communed with God a little way up the mountain, 
not far. 

6. The record says that they saw God. What kind 
of a sight of God did they see, and what other cases in 
the Old and New Testaments? 

Ans.—They did not see any form or likeness of God. 
Moses is very careful to say that “ no man can see God 
and live.” He is careful to say in the fourth chapter of 
Deuteronomy that at Sinai they saw no similitude or 
likeness. Now in the sixth chapter of Isaiah he (Isaiah) 
sees God as they saw Him, that is, he sees the throne; 
he sees the pavement; he sees a great many things about 
the throne, the angels, the cherubim and the seraphim, 
but he doesn’t see any likeness of God, though he hears 
God talking. Precisely so you find it in the first chap¬ 
ter of Ezekiel. He sees the chariot of God, four cheru¬ 
bim, their wheels, their wings and their faces looking 
every way, but he doesn’t see the One in the chariot, 
and so it is in the fourth chapter of Revelation where 
John is caught up to heaven and he sees the very same 
thing, this very pavement, and the throne, the cherubim, 
the angels round about the throne, and he sees some¬ 
thing that represents the Holy Spirit, and he sees some¬ 
thing that represents Jesus Christ, but he doesn’t see 
God. 

7. Apply this thought to transubstantiation and consub- 
stantiation in our feast, as the Romanists and Luther 
taught. 

Ans.—The Romanist says, “ This is the very body and 
the very blood of Christ; you can see it and you can taste 
it.” And the consubstantiation advocate, Luther, says, 


300 


EXODUS 


[xxiv-xxxiv 

“ The bread is not the body of Christ and the wine is not 
the blood of Christ, but Christ is there this way: You 
take a knife and put it in the fire and take it out of the 
fire when it is red hot, and you have the same metal, 
but you have something there that was not there before, 
viz.: heat, you can touch it and feel the effect of that 
heat burning. You can take cognizance of that kind of 
a presence, but in this analogous communication with 
God they saw no similitude, no form.” 

8. Explain that part of the feast where it is said that 
“ God laid his hand not on the elders of Israel, though 
they saw him.” 

Ans.—It means that God did not slay them. The 
declaration is often made, “ Whoever sees God shall die.” 
They can’t bear the sight of God. But the kind of a 
sight of God that these people saw, they were able to 
see without having the hand of God laid on them, and 
what a beautiful lesson! Before the covenant was made, 
when the trumpet sounded and the darkness came and 
the earth quaked and the lightning flashed, and that 
strange, awful voice speaking the Ten Words, the people 
were scared to death; they wanted a mediator, somebody 
to come between them and that awful Being. But know¬ 
ing that a covenant had been established and had been 
ratified by the blood of a substitute, they can see God 
in the sacrifice of the substitute and not die; see Him in 
perfect peace, just as you, before you are converted, 
look upon God as distant and unapproachable, but after 
you see Him in Christ in the covenant, the terror of 
God is taken away and you can sit there just as if eating 
a meal with a friend. 

9. Give again a complete outline of the covenant. 

Ans.—The complete outline of the covenant is: 


xxiv-xxxiv ] FEAST OF THE COVENANT 301 

(1) God’s proposition of a covenant and their agree¬ 

ment to enter into a covenant; 

(2) Their preparation for the covenant; 

(3) The three great terms of the covenant; 

(4) The ratification of the covenant; 

(5) The feast that follows the covenant. 

Will you keep that in mind? You need to be drilled up 
on that every now and then, so that when anybody asks 
you where there can be found a copy of the Sinai Cove¬ 
nant and all the parts of it, you can answer: “ It com¬ 
mences with the nineteenth of Exodus, and closes with the 
twenty-fourth chapter of Exodus.” That is the whole 
thing in all its parts. 

II. THE ASCENT OF MOSES INTO THE MOUNT, 

WHY AND HOW LONG? 

This is the second item of the outline. That is found 
immediately after what we have been discussing, com¬ 
mencing at the 12th verse of the twenty-fourth chapter: 
“ And the Lord said unto Moses, Come up to me into 
the mount and be there ”: that means, “ Moses, you are 
to be there quite a while ”; “ and I will give thee the 
tables of stone, and the law and the commandment, which 
I have written, that thou mayest teach them. And Moses 
rose up, and his servant Joshua; and Moses went up into 
the mount of God. And he said unto the elders, Tarry 
ye here for us, until we come again unto you; and, 
behold, Aaron and Hur are with you; if any man have 
any matters to do, let him come unto them. And Moses 
went up into the mount, and the cloud covered the 
mount. And the glory of the Lord abode upon Mount 
Sinai, and the cloud covered it six days; and the seventh 
day he called unto Moses out of the midst of the cloud. 


302 


EXODUS 


[xxiv-xxxiv 

And the sight of the glory of the Lord was like devour¬ 
ing fire on the top of the mount in the eyes of the children 
of Israel. And Moses went into the midst of the cloud, 
and went up into the midst of the mount; and Moses 
was in the mount forty days and forty nights.” Now here 
are the questions on that: 

10. Why is Moses, after the covenant is ratified and the 
feast is held, taken up into the mount? (He and Joshua 
alone go.) 

Ans.—He is carried up to receive the same law which 
had been spoken orally, now in writing—“ which I have 
written.” And what he went up particularly to get was 
the two tables or the Ten Commandments, and in God’s 
own handwriting that he might keep them as a witness. 
“ The tables of the testimony ” is the name of them. 
Moses wrote a copy that the people learned, but that 
particular copy was God’s own autograph. That was 
put up and preserved as “ tables of the testimony.” 

11. What the meaning of “ Tables of Stone,” “ a law,” 
and “ the commandments ” ? 

Ans.—The tables of stone I have just described. But 
what was the law that Moses goes up after? You 
would miss that if you had to answer it off-hand, and 
the commentators all miss it. They don’t get in a 
thousand miles of it. You will find that it was what he re¬ 
ceived when he went up there—a special law, and that 
special law was that the Sabbath, God’s Sabbath, should 
be the sign of the covenant. You find that at the end of 
this section that we are now on. So the law he went after 
was the law of the sign. 

Then what the commandment he went after? The 
commandments are all given in seven chapters, xxv to 
xxxi inclusive, and every one of them touches the law of 
the altar. We will glance at the outline of that directly. 


xxiv-xxxiv] FEAST OF THE COVENANT 308 

12. Why were these tables of testimony and this sign 
of the Sabbath and these laws concerning the altar given 
to Moses? 

Ans.—The lesson says, “ That thou mayest teach 
them.” 

13. Who was to represent Moses in the camp while he 
was absent in the mount? 

Ans.—Aaron and Hur. 

14. What reminder of a New Testament incident in 
these words of Moses: “ Tarry ye here for us until we 
come again ? ” 

Ans.—It is Jesus in Gethsemane, when He let the rep¬ 
resentatives stop, and said, “ Stay here while I go yonder 
and pray.” 

15. What was the visible token that God was present 
with Moses, and why that token? 

Ans.—Verses 16 and 17: “And the glory of the Lord 
abode upon Mount Sinai, and the cloud covered it and 
the sight of the glory of the Lord was like devouring fire 
on the top of the mount in the eyes of the children of 
Israel.” Now why is that last word or clause, “ In the 
eyes of the children of Israel ” ? That was a token to 
them not to get impatient. “ When you begin to say, 
‘ Moses stays a long time,’ you look up there at that 
cloud on top of that mountain, how exceedingly glorious 
it is, you may know that Moses is right in that cloud 
communing with God.” 

16. How long was Moses up there in that cloud before 
God spoke to him, and why did He speak to him on the 
particular day that He did? 

Ans.—Moses was up there six days. God called him 
up there. “ Don’t you get impatient. Here is the test 
of your faith. You wait. I have called you up here, 
to have an interview and to receive certain things, 


304 


EXODUS 


[xxiv-xxxiv 

and you wait; be patient/’ Now on the seventh day, 
that is, the Sabbath, which was the sign of the cove¬ 
nant, God spoke. 

17. How long was Moses in the mount, and the New 
Testament parallel? 

Ans.—Moses was in the mount forty days and forty 
nights, and the New Testament parallel is that after 
Christ was sacrificed for the ratification of the cove¬ 
nant and they had eaten the feast of the covenant and 
Christ was risen from the dead, He remains with them 
forty days, instructing them. That is just exactly what 
God is doing with Moses. Just as Jesus uses forty 
days after His sacrifice in careful instruction of His 
disciples, so God after this sacrifice and ratification of 
the covenant, takes Moses up into that mountain for 
forty days of continued explanation. 

18. Give for the present a mere summary of what 
Moses received on the mount, set forth in the seven 
chapters from the twenty-fifth to the thirty-first. 

Ans.—Just now all we want is a summary and the 
reason we don’t want to go into the details is that we 
take that up in the next chapter in connection with what 
follows. But all you want to know now is the outline. 
The outline is: 

(1) He received the tables of the testimony; 

(2) He received the law of the sign; 

(3) He received the commandments as follows: 

(a) The commandment upon the people to furnish 
voluntary offerings for what was to be made; 

(b) The making of the ark with the mercy-seat on it 
where God was to be met; the making of a tabernacle 
for the shewbread; the making of the candlestick; the 
making of a tabernacle or tent with its subdivisions and 
its marvellous veil between the divisions; and the court 


xxiv-xxxiv] FEAST OF THE COVENANT 305 

and the oil that was to supply the lampstand or candle¬ 
stick ; 

(c) The garments for Aaron, the high priest, when he 
officiated before God; 

(d) The law of the consecration of Aaron to the office 
of high priest; 

(e) The law of the consecration of the altar by which 
approach to God was to be made; 

(f) The law of the daily sacrifice; 

(g) The law of the golden altar or the altar of in¬ 
cense, and how it is to be offered. Incense is to be offered 
twice a day just like the lamp is to be lit twice a day and 
the sacrifice is to be offered twice a day—in the morning 
Aaron goes to trim the lamps—as the morning offering 
and the ascent of the morning cloud of incense represent¬ 
ing the going up of the prayers of God’s people, and in 
the afternoon he goes to light the lamp, and there is the 
evening sacrifice and the going up of the incense; 

(h) The atonement or ransom money and what that 
signifies; 

(i) The laver, that was to be between the altar and the 
mercy seat, and what it was to be used for; 

(j) The marvellous recipe of the anointing oil that was 
to be poured upon the head of a prophet or a priest or a 
king or a sacrifice; 

(k) The perfume that was to be put at the place of 
entrance, indicating that they were to meet the fragrance 
of God right at the threshold of entrance or approach 
to Him ; 

(l) The inspiration of the artificers of all this work. 
Just as an apostle was inspired to do his work, so certain 
men were here named that were inspired to do this work 
called for in all these things; 


306 EXODUS [xxiv-xxxiv 

(m) That Sabbath for a sign which I have already 
mentioned. 

III. THE BREACH OF THE COVENANT 

This is the third item. Where do you find that breach 
of the covenant? In the thirty-second chapter. We are 
coming to awful things now. The most interesting thing 
in the Old Testament: “ And when the people saw that 
Moses delayed to come down from the mount, the people 
gathered themselves together unto Aaron, and said unto 
him, Up, make us gods, which shall go before us; for 
as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the 
land of Egypt, we know not what is become of him. And 
Aaron said unto them, Break off the golden rings, which 
are in the ears of your wives, of your sons, and of your 
daughters, and bring them unto me. And all the people 
brake off the golden rings which were in their ears, and 
brought them unto Aaron. And he received it at their 
hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, and made it 
a molten calf; and they said, These are thy gods, O 
Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. 
And when Aaron saw this, he built an altar before it; 
and Aaron made proclamation, and said, To-morrow 
shall be a feast to Jehovah. And they rose up early on 
the morrow, and offered burnt-offerings, and brought 
peace-offerings; and the people sat down to eat and to 
drink, and rose up to play.” 

19. Give the nine elements of this breach of the cove¬ 
nant. 

Ans.—(1) The rejection of Moses and of God and a 
demand for other gods to be made: “ Make us gods.” 

(2) This god, of course, being man-made, was an idol. 

(3) The form of the god was the Egyptian god Apis, 


xxxv-xxxiv] FEAST OF THE COVENANT 307 

calf or ox, the Egyptian god that died of the murrain 
through one of the miracles of Moses. 

(4) They built an altar of worship and of sacrifice. 

(5) They offered both burnt- and peace-offerings. 

(6) They had a feast to follow this covenant they were 
making with this new god, and, 

(7) Stripping off their clothes, naked, they go into a 
drunken orgy and practise all of the beastly and infamous 
lusts that characterize that worship in Egypt and in 
other idol worshipping countries. Paul says, “ The peo¬ 
ple sat down to eat and rose up to play,” and then adds, 
“ Be ye not fornicators and adulterers as they were.” 

20. What God’s announcement to Moses and what the 
purposes announced concerning Israel and the raising 
up of a new people? 

Ans.—You see God saw that breach of the covenant 
that had just been made. The answer is this, commenc¬ 
ing with the 7th verse: “ The Lord said unto Moses, Go, 
get thee down; for thy people, which thou broughtest out 
of the land of Egypt, have corrupted themselves; they 
have turned aside quickly out of the way which I com¬ 
manded them; they have made them a molten calf, and 
have worshipped it, and have sacrificed thereunto, and 
have said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which have 
brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. And the Lord 
said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and now, behold 
it is a stiffnecked people; now therefore let me alone, that 
my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may con¬ 
sume them; and I will make of thee a great nation.” 
That is the terrible announcement. They have broken the 
covenant. “ I will instantly destroy them; I will raise up 
a new people from Moses. He will be the basis of the 
new people.” Now before they get out of this trouble 
there will be four intercessions of Moses. 


308 EXODUS [xxiv-xxxiv 

21. What the first intercession of Moses and its re¬ 
sult ? 

Ans.—I quote it, commencing at the nth verse: 
“ And Moses besought the Lord his God, and said, Lord, 
why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which 
thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with 
great power and with a mighty hand ? Wherefore should 
the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring 
them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume 
them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce 
wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people. Re¬ 
member Abraham, Isaac and Israel, thy servants, to 
whom thou swearest by thine own self, and saidst unto 
them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, 
and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto 
your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever.” So the 
first thing was to stop instant destruction of that people. 
The result: “ And the Lord repented of the evil which 
he thought to do unto his people.” He didn’t kill them 
right then, but he at least suspended that terrible bolt of 
divine wrath that was about to fall upon them. 

22. What did Moses and Joshua see on their return to 
the camp ? 

Ans.—All the above happened before Moses came 
down from the mount. Joshua says, “ I hear a great 
shout down in the camp. There must be an army or there 
must be a battle.” Moses says, “ No, that is not the shout, 
neither of men on the battlefield, nor of men crying for 
mercy. That is the shout of singing; those people are 
singing down there.” And they came down and saw that 
calf; they saw their naked and beastly orgies; they saw 
the whole hideous sin which the people had committed. 

23. What the first token that the covenant was broken? 

Ans.—Moses took the tables of the testimony and broke 


xxiv-xxxiv] FEAST OF THE COVENANT 309 

them all to pieces right in the sight of the people. “ You 
do not need these tokens any more. I have brought 
you in the handwriting of God the witness of the cove¬ 
nant; you broke it; let the token be broken.” 

24. What in order are the other things done in that 
camp by Moses when he got down there? 

Ans.—Moses was not a man to go down there and 
hold his finger in his mouth. When he sees that thing he 
is stirred. Let us see now what in order were the things 
that he did. First, he took that calf and burned it until 
it pulverized; then he mingled the ashes of it in water and 
made the people drink it. Second, he shook his finger 
in the face of Aaron and said, “ What have these people 
done unto you that you led them into this sin? I went 
up in that mountain to meet God; I left you as my repre¬ 
sentative. Now what have these people ever done to you 
that you should lead them into this ? ” And Aaron pleads 
the baby act if ever a man did in the world. He says, 
“ Well, they—they—they said, ‘ Make us a god,’ and I 
told them to bring me the earrings and I put the earrings 
into the fire and there came out this calf; the fire did it.” 
The old father, when his boy went to school several 
years, came home disappointed and broken in health, and 
knowing nothing, said, “ All that money I put into the 
fire of education and there came out this calf.” Third, 
Moses said unto them in the camp, while naked and half 
drunk they stood before him not daring to open their 
lips, “ Whoso is on the Lord’s side, let him stand by me. 
I am going to draw a line. Somebody in this great camp 
surely is on the Lord’s side.” And the Levites came; 
You remember when Jacob pronounced the prophecy of 
blessing on his children he gave a big slice to Levi. 
When Moses goes to pronounce a blessing he is going 
to pronounce a great honour on Levi, and he is going to 


310 


EXODUS 


[xxiv-xxxiv 

assign as a reason what Levi does this day. That whole 
tribe lined up on the side of Moses. They didn’t stand up 
there just as a show. “ Now, if you are on the Lord’s 
side, draw your swords and wade into that crowd. Don’t 
stop if it is your brother, or father, or mother, no matter 
how close akin to you. There must be a penalty inflicted 
for this awful sin,” and Levi pitched in and slew three 
thousand. Fourth, he began to take steps toward saving 
those people from temporal and eternal destruction, and 
that brings us to the next question: 

25. What the second intercession of Moses and God’s 
reply ? 

Ans.—Moses said, “ You have sinned a great sin, and 
now I will go up unto the Lord and peradventure I 
shall make an atonement for your sin.” Now you come 
to the next intercession of Moses: “ And Moses re¬ 

turned unto the Lord and said, [and this is the greatest 
piece of intercession that ever took place on earth except 
in the case of Christ] Oh, this people have sinned a great 
sin and have made them gods of gold. Yet now if thou 
wilt, forgive their sin; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out 
of thy book which thou hast written.” Only one other 
man ever said anything like that, and concerning this 
same stiffnecked people, and that was Paul, “ I could wish 
myself accursed from Christ for my brethren’s sake.” 
Moses, in other words, offered himself as a substitute for 
the people. “ Don’t, don’t destroy them! Destroy me ! ” 
It was a grand proposition. Now, what did God say to 
that intercession ? “ The Lord said to Moses, Whosoever 
hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book. I 
will not blot you out for them. The soul that sinneth it 
shall die. Therefore now go, lead these people unto the 
place of which I have spoken unto them; behold mine 
angel shall go before thee; nevertheless in the day when 


xxiv-xxxiv] FEAST OF THE COVENANT 311 

I visit, I will visit their sin upon them. And the Lord 
plagued the people, because they made the calf, which 
Aaron made.” 

26. What the effect of this upon the people ? 

Ans.—They mourned and laid aside their ornaments 
and did not put them on from Mt. Horeb onward. 


XXVI 


THE BREACH OF THE COVENANT ( Continued) 

AND ITS RENEWAL 

Exodus XXXIII , 7—XXXV, 3 

27."T - IT THAT the second token that the covenant was 
v/\/ broken ? 

* " Ans.—The temporary tent of the Lord, 

on which the cloud rested, when He communed with 
Israel, was moved outside the camp to show that the 
presence of the Lord was no longer with them. (See 
Exodus xxxiii, 7-11.) Their own conduct had made the 
Lord an outsider. 

28. Analyze the third intercession of Moses. 

Ans.—(1) He recites as the ground of his petition the 
fact (a) that the Lord had placed on him the responsi¬ 
bility of taking his people to the land of promise and (b) 
had assured him of his own gracious standing before the 
Lord (xxxiii, 12). 

(2) The petition itself—No. 1. 

(a) Show me Thy way. 

(b) Consider this people as Thy people, i.e., take them 
back into favour. 

(c) The petition granted in part; the presence of the 
Lord Himself and not a deputy would be with Moses and 
he should find rest—xxxiii, 14. 

(d) Petition No. 2. Moses renews and presses the pe¬ 
tition for the people, that the Presence should be with 

312 


xxxiii-xxxv] BREACH OF THE COVENANT 313 

them, and not him alone, and that they should be the 
Lord’s peculiar people separated from all other nations, 
xxxiii, 16. 

(e) Petition No. 2 granted, xxxiii, 17. 

(f) Petition No. 3, “ Show me thy glory,” xxxiii, 18. 

(g) Petition No. 3 granted in a modified way, xxxiii, 
19-23. 

29. How was the success of this intercession evi¬ 
denced ? 

Ans.—(1) New tables of testimony, to contain the 
Decalogue, were ordered to be prepared for God’s own 
inscription on the morrow, xxxiv, 1-3. 

(2) The Lord did show Moses His glory, xxxiv, 4-7. 

30. Analyze this glory and its modification. 

Ans.—(1) the Name proclaimed, Jehovah, Jehovah 
Elohim, i.e., (a) Jehovah is the Lord in a covenant of 
revelation and mercy with sinners; (b) This Jehovah is a 
revelation of the invisible Elohim. For example, in the 
first chapter of Genesis the name of the invisible, un¬ 
knowable Deity is Elohim. But in the second chapter, 
where He is revealed to Adam and enters into covenant 
with him, the name is Jehovah Elohim. After man’s 
sin Jehovah Elohim is not only a revelation of the invis¬ 
ible Deity but a revelation of Him in grace as a Saviour. 
Adam could see and know, commune with, and enter into 
covenant with Jehovah Elohim but not with Elohim 
direct. Moses could see, talk with, Jehovah Elohim, both 
revelator and Saviour, but he could not see Elohim. This 
explains xxxiii, 23. See similar case, John xiv, 8-11. 

It is also the explanation of the names of God through¬ 
out the Old Testament, “ Elohim,” “ Jehovah,” “ Jehovah 
Elohim,” over which radical critics have needlessly 
puzzled themselves and darkened counsel for others by 
words without knowledge. 


31 4 i EXODUS [xxxm-xxxv 

(2) The character of this revelation of God as a 
Saviour: 

(a) Merciful and gracious, Psalms ciii, 8-14; James 

y , 11 ; 

(b) Longsuffering (as in the case of Paul the indi¬ 
vidual), I Timothy i, 16; and in the case of the world at 
large, II Peter iii, 9; 

(c) Abundant in goodness and truth; 

(d) Keeping mercy for thousands; 

(e) Will not clear the guilty; this is justice; 

(f) Visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the 
children unto the third and fourth generation; Law of 
heredity . 

31. Who preached great but widely different sermons 
on “ Show me thy glory,” Exodus xxiii, 18? 

Ans.—Henry Ward Beecher and Spurgeon; the first, 
beautiful and rhetorical; the second, evangelical. 

32. What great Colonial preacher began but never fin¬ 
ished a series of masterly sermons on Exodus xxxiv, 

< 5 , 7 ? 

Ans.—Davies of Virginia, who prophesied the great¬ 
ness of Washington after Braddock’s defeat. 

33. Explain xxxiii, 22—Moses hid in the rock as God 
passed by, and what great hymn thereon? 

Ans.—Now, the idea is that God, Elohim, is as a con¬ 
suming fire out of Christ; man cannot see Him and live. 
Hence Moses was placed in a refuge, while God’s hand 
closed the aperture as Elohim passed by. But after 
Elohim passed, Moses might safely see Jehovah Elohim, 
that is, God revealed as a Saviour. The hymn is Top- 
lady’s “ Rock of Ages.” The idea is just the same when 
the Children of Israel were placed behind the blood- 
sprinkled door as the angel of death passed by. 

34. What the fourth intercession of Moses? 


xxxih-xxxv] BREACH OF THE COVENANT 315 

Ans.—See Exodus xxxiv, 8, 9: 

(1) Come back among us; 

(2) Pardon our sins; 

(3) Make us thine inheritance. 

35. Result of this final petition? 

Ans.—The covenant was renewed. 

IV. COVENANT RESTORED BUT MODIFIED 

36. The terms as renewed? 

Ans.—(1) On God's part: He agrees to accept them 
again as His peculiar people and promises to do mighty 
things by them, driving out all their enemies, xxxiv, 
10, 11. 

(2) On the people's part: 

(a) They must make no covenant with the Canaanites 
nor intermarry with them. Their altars, groves and 
images must be destroyed. 

(b) They must worship Jehovah only and make no 
idols. 

(c) They must give to the Lord for service, or by 
ransom, the firstborn. 

(d) They must assemble three times a year before the 
Lord to keep the three national feasts, Passover, Pente¬ 
cost and Tabernacles, God Himself guarding their fron¬ 
tiers while they were absent from home. 

(e) They must keep His Sabbaths. 

In other words it is a modified restatement of the 
covenant, Exodus xix, i-xxiv, 11. 

37. How long was Moses in the mount to receive 
again the written Decalogue and the other parts of the 
covenant ? 

Ans.—Forty days and nights as before. 

38. What new fact is here brought out ? 


316 


EXODUS 


[xxxiii-xxxv 

Ans.—He fasted absolutely the whole time. 

39. Is it possible to fast that long without dying? 

Ans.—(1) Elijah did it, I Kings xix, 18; (2) Jesus did 

it, Matthew iv, 2; (3) a Dr. Tanner did it in the memory 
of the author, only he used a little water. 

40. What prodigy appeared in the face of Moses? 

Ans.—His face was illumined. 

41. What laws here fulfilled? 

Ans.—(1) The law of assimilation, viz.: We become 
like that which we steadfastly contemplate, II Corinthians 
iii, 18; (2) The inner light radiates through the body and 
glorifies the face. 

42. What New Testament case? 

Ans.—Transfiguration of Jesus; case of Stephen. 

43. What style of art gives us the face illumined? 

Ans.—The Rembrandt style. 

44. Was Moses conscious of the shining at first and if 
not what made him conscious? 

Ans.—At first, “ Moses wist not that his face was 
shining.” He learned it by noting the effect on the 
people. 

45. What that effect? 

“ They were afraid to come nigh him,” xxxiv, 30. 

46. How did he cause them to come nigh? 

Ans.—By veiling his face when talking to them. 

47. Was this shining permanent? 

Ans.—No. 

48. Where, in the New Testament, is this incident ex¬ 
pounded, and what use there made of it? 

Ans.—II Corinthians iii: Paul uses it to contrast the 
two covenants. He admits that the Old Testament was 
glorious, but like the light on the face of Moses was 
transitory, its light passing away when the greater glory 
of the covenant appeared. 


xxxm-xxxv] BREACH OF THE COVENANT 317 

49. Why, according to Paul, did Moses veil his face ? 

Ans.—That the people might not see the light fading 

away and so despise him, II Corinthians iii, 13. 

50. How do the Jews misunderstand the veiling and so 
yet cling to Moses? 

Ans.—They think the shining is still there behind the 
veil, and that the veiling is a mercy to them lest they be 
blinded by the too dazzling light. 

51. How does Paul expound this delusion and its 
remedy? 

Ans.—See II Corinthians iii, 14: “But their minds 
were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same veil 
untaken away in the reading of the Old Testament; 
which veil is done away in Christ.” 

52. How does he contrast Christians? 

Ans.—There is no veil over their faces, and hence 
seeing Christ plainly, they are changed into His 
image from glory to glory, II Corinthians iii, 18. 

53. How does Paul explain that even the brighter and 
more enduring gospel light is veiled to some people ? 

Ans.—II Corinthians iv, 3: “ But if our gospel be 

hid, it is hid to them that are lost, in whom the God of 
this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe 
not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is 
the image of God, should shine unto them.” 

54. How does the poet, Tom Moore, illustrate the mis¬ 
understanding of the Jews concerning the veiled face of 
Moses and the awful disappointment that must come at 
the unveiling if they reject Christ? 

Ans.—In his poem “ The Veiled Prophet of the Kor- 
assan ” in “ Lalla Rookh.” This prophet always wore a 
silver veil. He taught his victims that to unveil his face 
before they were prepared would blind and slay them. 
At the close of the story, having ruined the maiden 


318 


EXODUS 


[xxxm-xxxv 


Zelica by what he called preparing her, he then unveils 
and shows to her despair the hideous face that had been 
covered. 

55. Quote from the poem about this unveiling. 

Ans.— 


“ ‘ But turn and look—then wonder, if thou wilt, 

That I should hate, should take revenge, by guilt, 
Upon the hand, whose mischief or whose mirth 
Sent me thus maim’d and monstrous upon earth, 

And on that race who, though more vile they be 
Than mowing apes, are demigods to me! 

Here—judge if hell, with all its power to damn, 

Can add one curse to the foul thing I am! ’ 

He raised his veil—the maid turned slowly round, 
Look’d at him—shrieked—and sunk upon the ground! ” 


XXVII 


THE TABERNACLE 

Exodus XXV—XXXI; XXXV—XL 

T HIS chapter covers thirteen chapters of Exodus, 
and, of course, I can only touch them in places. 
These chapters are xxv-xxxi and xxxv-xl. 
i. Was there a temporary tent before this tabernacle 
was built ? 

Ans.—You will find in Exodus xxxiii, 7-11, that there 
was a temporary tent and on one occasion it was moved 
outside of the camp. 

2. What the names of the tabernacle and the reasons 
therefor? 

Ans.—First, the “ Tabernacle of Testimony, or Wit¬ 
ness,” Exodus xxxviii, 21; Numbers xvii, 7, 8. Those 
two names mean the same thing. The Tabernacle of Tes¬ 
timony, or of Witness; and the reason of this is that this 
tent was the depository of the testimonials; anything that 
was to be kept for a testimony was to be kept in this 
tent; for example, in it were the tables of testimony or 
God’s autograph on the two tables of stone containing the 
Ten Commandments. That copy was kept as a witness; 
then in it was the Book of the Covenant, that is, those 
chapters, xix, 1, to xxiv, 9. That part is called the Book 
of the Covenant. That was in Moses’ handwriting. Then 
there were the records made by Moses, that is, the Penta- 

319 


320 


EXODUS 


[XXV-XL 

teuch, the entire Pentateuch was put in the tent and kept 
in there; then Aaron’s rod that budded was put in there 
and a pot of the manna and later the brazen serpent that 
Moses erected. All of these were memorials. Now the 
tent that held these testimonials was called the Taber¬ 
nacle of the Witness, or the Testimony. That accounts 
for one of its names. 

Next name, it is called the “ Temple of the Lord.” 
You will find this name in I Samuel i, 9, and iii, 33; the 
reason of that name is that there God was approached 
and propitiated and worshipped and that gave the name 
“ temple.” 

The third name is the “ House of the Lord,” because 
He occupied it. He was the dweller in it. As a Sheki- 
nah He dwelt in there symbolically between the Cheru¬ 
bim on the mercy-seat and hence it was called the “ House 
of the Lord.” 

The fourth name is “ Sanctuary,” that is on account of 
its holiness. It was holy unto God; the most holy place, 
the holy place and the whole ground, or campus, was set 
apart to sacred purposes, hence, the Sanctuary. 

The fifth name for it was the “ Holy Oracles ”; that 
applied, of course, only to what is called the “ Most Holy 
Place ”; that is very frequently in the Bible called the 
Oracle of the Temple, the Most Holy Place. It is so 
called in the twenty-eighth Psalm, 2d verse, and in I 
Kings vi, 5. Now it obtained this name because there 
God spoke. An oracle is to give an answer to questions 
propounded. There God spoke, and it was also called the 
Oracle, because in it were kept the written words of God, 
the Place of the Oracle; the book of the Pentateuch was 
kept in there. Now, the references here are very numer¬ 
ous on this oracle question. In the sixteenth chapter of 
I Samuel, 23d verse; in Acts vii, 38, and in Romans iii, 2. 


321 


XXV- xl] THE TABERNACLE 

are some references to this Most Holy Place as the 
Oracle: “ What advantage then hath the Jew? Much 
every way, but chiefly because unto them were committed 
the oracles of God.” There the oracles mean the same 
thing as the Bible, that is, as their Bible grew in volume 
it was kept in that place; that was the oracle for their 
Bible. 

Now I repeat the names of this tabernacle: 

(i) The Tabernacle of the Testimony, or Witness; 
(2) The Temple of the Lord; (3) The Tabernacle is 
called the House of the Lord; (4) The Sanctuary; (5) 
The Oracle. 

3. What can you say about the pattern of this taber¬ 
nacle ? 

Ans.—It was God’s pattern, copy, shadow or type of 
a true sanctuary in heaven, that is, there is in heaven a 
true sanctuary, a true holy place, a Most Holy Place, and 
as the poet Campbell says, 

“ Coming events cast their shadows before,” 

so that reality in heaven casts its shadow before in the 
form of this copy or type. And when the real thing came 
of course the shadow disappeared. Anyone walking 
from a light casts his shadow before him, and the shadow 
will get to an object first; now when the substance gets 
there, the shadow is gone. I give you some very par¬ 
ticular references on this word pattern, what it means and 
about God’s being the author of it. He furnishes the 
complete plan and every detail of the specifications. Not 
only for this sanctuary but for its successor, the temple, 
and for the temple’s successor, the church on earth, and 
for its successor, the church in glory. I give you some 
scriptures in point: Exodus xxv, 40; xxvi, 33 ; xxvii, 9; 
xxxix, 32; xlii, 43; Acts vii, 44; Hebrews viii, 2, 5; x, 1. 


322 EXODUS [xxv-xl 

All of those refer to this sanctuary that Moses built 
as having been made according to a pattern which God 
furnished. Moses was commanded to see to it that every¬ 
thing be made according to the pattern. Now to give you 
an illustration that will come more nearly home to you, 
I got an architect to draw me up a plan of a house to 
live in near the Seminary in Fort Worth. He drew 
four floors, that is, four floor plans; two side elevations, 
a front and a rear elevation; then a long list of specifi¬ 
cations as to material, how that material was to be used, 
and the bill of the lumber, and of the brick and of the 
stone, and everything in it was put down. Now when 
I went to let that contract the contractor entered into 
a contract to build it according to the plans and specifi¬ 
cations. If he had varied a hair’s breadth from what that 
architect put down, I cnuld have held him liable. I make 
this remark to you in order to correct some loose 
thoughts. People that insist upon sticking to God’s plans 
and specifications on the tabernacle and on the temple, will 
deny that He has any plans and specifications on their 
successor, the church, and that nearly anything will do 
for a church, and that they can put things in nearly any 
sort of an order; they can commence with communion 
on the outside before a man is ever converted, and as a 
means to conversion; they can baptize him before he is 
converted, or they can dispense with it altogether. It 
is one of the most appalling signs of the times, that there 
is such looseness with reference to God’s positive institu¬ 
tions. It is a thousand times more important that the 
church be strictly continued and followed in all God’s 
plans and specifications than it was with this tabernacle, 
and yet there was not one-eighth of an inch variation in 
the measurements of this tabernacle. You may settle it 
that God is a God of order and not of confusion. This 


THE TABERNACLE 


323 


xxv-xl] 

tells us here about certain tables and it tells us how those 
tables were to be constructed, and what was to go on 
them, and just where they must put them and just how 
they were to use them. Some people take the table of 
the church and put it outdoors and just call up Tom, 
Dick, and Harry to come and partake; a thing that you 
wouldn’t dare to do in my house; you couldn’t say where 
my table should be put. / do that. We certainly ought 
to allow God the same privilege about His table. You 
could not invite guests to my house, to dine; I must do 
that. We ought to allow God that privilege. You are 
the judge of what you put on your table, and we should 
let the Lord tell us what to put on His table. Then don’t 
go and invent a hundred things to tack on to what God 
has specified. 

4. What were the materials of this sanctuary and 
their value? 

Ans.—There are eight kinds of materials specified. I 
will commence with the costliest. There are quite a 
number of very precious stones, jewels, some of them of 
exceeding great value and beauty. They are enumer¬ 
ated. 

The next was gold. The pattern tells you just exactly 
what gold must be put in it. Some of it was simply 
threads of gold. The gold must be beaten out very thin 
and then cut into the finest threads of gold and work these 
threads into the cloth. And the plans must not be varied 
from by one single thread of that battered gold. 

Then the next material used was silver. It specifies in 
every particular where that silver was to be used. 

And the next was brass, and then it tells just what 
should be made of brass, whether the outside mould, or 
the brazen altar, or some brazen socket in which a pole 
or post rested. 


324 


EXODUS 


[XXV-XL 

The fifth material was the acacia wood, very common 
in that wilderness, and it was a very hard wood, hence 
exceedingly durable for building purposes of any kind. 
Now it is a notable fact that this old tent had a good 
deal of acacia wood in it in certain places; it was ex¬ 
isting up to the time that Solomon built the temple, all 
the posts around it, all of acacia wood. When I read 
about it I am reminded of what a little boy in North 
Texas said with reference to bois d’arc. He said a 
bois d’arc fence would last through two eternities, that 
he and his daddy had tried it several times. In other 
words, it doesn’t wear out at all and it doesn’t rot. I 
know a bois d’arc fence now that is ninety-one years 
old, and it is just as sound as a silver dollar. So that aca¬ 
cia was the kind of wood to be used. The wood that 
went into the ark of the covenant consisted of a base of 
wood and then there was a covering of gold, and the 
wooden base of that ark was there in that temple nearly 
a thousand years later when Nebuchadnezzar destroyed 
the temple. I mention that to show you how much better 
it was for those people to follow God’s specifications about 
the wood. Suppose they had put in something that would 
have rotted in about two years. 

The sixth element of material was the various kinds of 
cloth. This cloth would either be what is called fine 
twined linen, finished linen made out of the flax, or it was 
a coarse cloth made of goat’s hair or it was woolen 
cloth, or it was made out of skins—what is called badgers’ 
skins, though probably not badgers’. It was more likely 
to have been the skins of sea animals and that skin was 
impervious to water when the animal was in the water, 
and remained impervious to water. They needed 
cloths for all things, for the girdles, and for the different 
classes of garments that are specified and for the veils. 


THE TABERNACLE 


325 


xxv-xl] 

The seventh element of material was olive oil, pure 
beaten olive oil. That was to be for the lamps, and the 
eighth and last specification of the material was spices, 
perfumes that were to be for anointing. For instance 
He gives a prescription of the holy anointing oil, with 
olive oil as a base, and His directions will tell you just 
what spices to put in it and precisely what proportion; 
so many parts of one and so many parts of another. And 
they are not only commanded not to vary from that but 
they were never to make that holy anointing oil to be used 
for any secular purpose whatever. A king on his throne 
couldn't have as much made as would stick to his little 
finger. 

The question says, give the materials and their value. 
Unfortunately we have no means of valuing all the ma¬ 
terials that were used. There is one place in your lesson 
that gives you the weight, Troy weight, of the gold, silver, 
and brass, and I can tell you what that was: 3,350 lbs. 
Troy weight of pure gold; 11,526 lbs. Troy weight of 
pure silver; 8,112 lbs. of brass. The measure is given. 
A shekel was a weight or measure as well as a piece of 
money. They give it in shekels and these shekels con¬ 
verted into pounds, Troy weight, and you can convert 
these pounds Troy weight into dollars and cents so far as 
gold and silver are concerned, into the present worth. 

5. How was this vast amount of materials obtained? 

Ans.—Every bit of it was by voluntary contribution. 
The twenty-fifth chapter commences with the word of 
God to Moses to call upon the people to make an offering 
for the sanctuary. But God declines to take any offering 
unless it is a freewill offering; it must be on the part of 
the willing heart. And when you turn over to read about 
how David got the material for erecting the temple it is 
a most thrilling part of the Old Testament; the biggest 


326 


EXODUS 


[XXV-XL 

contribution the world ever saw was collected. It is a 
fine thing to preach on, and a good suggestion to preach¬ 
ers when building a sanctuary for the Lord is to take 
contributions from the willing heart. 

6. Who were the artificers that made all these things, 
and how were they qualified to make them? 

Ans.—Some of the work was very delicate and re¬ 
quired the greatest possible skill and nicety in construc¬ 
tion. Exodus xxxi: “ And the Lord spake unto Moses 
saying, See, I have called by name Bezaleel the son of 
Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah; and I have 
filled him with the Spirit of God, in wisdom, and in un¬ 
derstanding and in knowledge, and in all manner of work¬ 
manship, to devise cunning works, to work in gold, and in 
silver, and in brass, and in cutting of stones, to set them, 
and in carving of timber, to work in all manner of work¬ 
manship. And I, behold, I have given with him Aholiab 
the son of Ahisamach, of the tribe of Dan; and in the 
hearts of all that are wise hearted I have put wisdom, that 
they may make all that I have commanded thee.” Only 
three of them are mentioned by name. 

7. What arts were implied in building this taber¬ 
nacle ? 

Ans.—Well, you can see that they couldn’t have cloths 
unless there were weavers and they would not have those 
different cloths unless they had industries, and that those 
precious stones couldn’t be cut unless there were lapi¬ 
daries; and that wood couldn’t be carved so beautifully 
unless there were skilled men in wood carving, and that 
structure couldn’t be planned and carried out unless there 
were architects. Then there had to be the most exquisite 
work on the high priest’s garment—there was to be on 
the bottom or border a row of pomegranates and bells, 
a pomegranate and a little bell, then a pomegranate and 


THE TABERNACLE 




xxv-xl] 

a bell, and so on all around it. That had to be the most 
perfect thing. Whenever that high priest moved 
those bells would ring, and he couldn’t stop when 
he was performing the ceremonies in the Most Holy 
Place. If those bells stopped ringing he would die in¬ 
stantly; and the people would keep praying on the out¬ 
side as long as they heard the bells on the high priest’s 
garments ringing. That shows that the high priest rings 
out to God the petition that they send up, and that 
shows the intercession. The bells in heaven upon His 
robe are always ringing, so He is praying for you all the 
time. 

Now you see that to have the instruments to do all 
these things implied manufacturers; those jeweller’s tools, 
those carving tools, and that brass; they must have 
foundries. Think of the number of arts, and what a 
tremendous change had taken place in these people after 
they went into Egypt. They were nomads, ranch people, 
cowboys till then; when they got to Egypt they learned 
agriculture, city building, architecture, all sorts of fine 
work, and now it is all brought out with them, and when 
they go to leave Egypt, the Egyptians are so glad to get 
rid of them, God put it in the hearts of the Egyptians to 
bestow on the Jews gold and silver and jewels, and that 
is where all this gold and silver comes from that they 
are using now to build the tabernacle. 

8 . Define the whole space of the court. 

Ans.—I am not going to answer that question for you. 
I want you to make a diagram and let that diagram 
show the relative places of the entire court, the heights 
of the curtain wall around that court and the gate of en¬ 
trance and where the altar, i.e., the brazen altar, is placed, 
and where the laver is placed, and how they got into the 
Holy Place and then into the Holy of Holies. And I 


328 


EXODUS 


[XXV-XL 

want you to show in that diagram just where Moses’ 
place was, and where Aaron’s place was, and the places 
all around that diagram of the court where the Levites 
were, and which of them on this side and which on that 
side, and then show the tribes camped around it; what 
three tribes on the north side, what three on the south, 
on the east and on the west. 

If you want to see a diagram so that you will have 
nothing to do but copy it, get (and every reader of this 
book ought to have what I have urged them to have) the 
Rand-McNally’s Atlas by J. L. Hurlbut. You ought to 
read what it has to say about every lesson that we have. 
And if you have that Hurlbut Atlas it gives you just the 
picture that I have drawn mentally and orally, showing 
the length, breadth, and height of this court; showing you 
where the gate is on the east; showing you just where 
Moses was to be, where Aaron was to be, where the 
Levites were to camp, and where the other tribes were to 
be placed—all around it; how big the tabernacle was, how 
big each division was, and how big the Most Holy 
Place was in cubic measurement. The question is, De¬ 
fine the whole space of the court. 

9. What are the tent divisions, and the sizes of the 
divisions ? 

Ans.—I will tell you that the tent was divided into 
two divisions, the Holy Place and the Most Holy Place, 
and that they were separated by what is called the veil 
of the temple, but it came to be a tremendous thing in 
the Herodian temple—seventy feet long and thirty feet 
wide, and four inches thick, and so woven that ten yoke 
of oxen couldn’t tear it, and yet when Jesus died it 
was rent in twain from top to bottom. 

10. What were the contents of that Most Holy Place? 

Ans.—There were just two things in there, and don’t 


THE TABERNACLE 


329 


xxv-xl] 

you ever put anything else in there. These are the 
articles, viz.: the ark, which is one thing, and the mercy- 
seat which rested right on top of it; of course, the mercy- 
seat which rested right on top of it had its propitiatory 
place where the atonement was made, and the Cheru¬ 
bim of pure gold (of course there were things in the 
ark—the witnesses: the pot of manna, Aaron’s rod, the 
brazen serpent, and so on). But two things are in there 
—the mercy-seat, which is on top of the ark, a chest with 
its contents inside, and the mercy-seat resting on it. 

11. How was that Most Holy Place lighted? 

Ans.—There was no light in it, but clouds of darkness: 
“ a thick pavilion of darkness is my habitation.” When¬ 
ever you get to the church in glory the expression, “ There 
is no temple, there is no altar or shrine,” don’t mean 
the general structure about the shrines, just as the mercy- 
seat on top of the ark constituted the shrine. When you 
get to the church in glory there is no shrine there. Why ? 
Because the Lord God and the Lamb are the light thereof. 
Now down here in this tabernacle there was a shrine, the 
Cherubim, and the Shekinah signifying the presence of 
God. 

12. Who enters, and how often, into that Most Holy 
Place ? 

Ans.—The high priest only, and that only one time a 
year. Nobody could ever see the outside of what was in 
there. They couldn’t see the outside of the ark nor the 
outside of the mercy-seat. It was always carried, but 
it was carried covered. And the tent was first put up 
upon arriving at a camp and after the tent was put up 
the bearers of the ark carried it on the inside, and when 
they went out Aaron alone uncovered it. He was the 
only one that ever saw it. The next division of that tent 
is the Holy Place. 


330 EXODUS [xxv-xl 

13. What was the Holy Place, where were the con¬ 
tents set up, and what did they represent? 

Ans.—Just three things were in there. Now I leave 
you to answer as to where they were put. There was the 
seven-branched golden candlestick; the light of that lamp 
was never allowed to go out at night. It was trimmed 
every morning and lighted every evening just before 
dark. That candlestick or lampstand was just one 
lampstand. The one that was in the temple when Titus 
captured Jerusalem was carried to Rome as a trophy. 
Another thing in there was a table, and on that table six 
loaves of bread in one place and six loaves of bread in 
another place and a cup, and in the third place was a little 
altar called the golden altar in contradistinction from the 
big one on the outside, the brazen altar. This altar is 
covered with gold and on that is the frankincense or in¬ 
cense; the material is frankincense, and it becomes in¬ 
cense, going up when it is burning in a beautiful smoke 
and very fragrant. Now as you enter that division from 
the east, the right hand will be the north. Which one of 
the things do you put on the north ? Do you put a table, 
a candlestick, or a golden altar ? Which one do you put to 
the south, and which one in the centre right opposite the 
veil that has to be lifted aside by Aaron once a year? 
You will have to work that out. Now the next part of 
the question: 

What do those three things represent? 

Ans.—They represent the blessings of salvation by 
grace like the food and the spirit of prayer, as communi¬ 
cants get those spiritual blessings. That bread also repre¬ 
sents the twelve tribes—shewbread—that is, it is bread 
for exhibition, very sacred, nobody was ever allowed to 
eat it. David did eat a piece once when he was very 
hungry and Jesus excused him under the circumstances 


THE TABERNACLE 


331 


xxv-xl] 

(he was starving) though “ He did cat the shewbread 
which was against the law.” Now we have found out 
the contents of the Holy Place, and how they were set up, 
and what they represented. 

14. Who enters that Holy Place (not the Most Holy 
Place) and how often? 

Ans.—Not the Levites, but the priests. The Levites 
had the run of the court, Aaron the Most Holy Place, the 
priests the Holy Place. 

15. What are the contents of the court and their re¬ 
spective positions and signification? 

Ans.—In the open courts around the tent there were 
these things: (1) Near the east gate of the outer court 
was the brazen altar, the altar of burnt-offering and sin- 
offering. That was the altar of sacrifices. (2) Between 
that altar and the entrance into the Holy Place was the 
laver, a vessel containing water used by the priests in 
the ablutions necessary to the performance of their duties. 

16. Who entered this court and how often? 

Ans.—Aaron and his sons that constituted the priest¬ 
hood, and the Levites—the whole tribe of Levi that 
served in the matters of the public worship. They all 
entered this court. Some of them were in there every 
day. There were daily offerings, one every morning and 
one every evening; so that was open all the time to 
Aaron or his sons or the Levites having special work to 
perform in there. 

17. Where did the people come? 

Ans.—They came to that gate in the east; they didn’t 
get inside of the gate. They brought their offerings to 
the gate. 

18. Who were the ministers in the sacrifices and how 
were they set apart? Divide their respective duties of 
the court. 


332 EXODUS [xxv-xl 

Ans.—Your lesson tells you all about that; that the 
ministers consisted of Aaron, the high priest, the priests 
and the Levites. Your lesson tells you just exactly how 
each one of them was to be consecrated to office, the 
ritual, etc. Aaron does certain things, and he alone; the 
priests certain things, and they alone; the Levites cer¬ 
tain things, and they alone. 


XXVIII 


THE TABERNACLE ( Continued ) 

19. V k ^HE high priest’s apparel, its use and meaning? 

Ans.—Your book has a great deal to say 
about the clothing of the high priest but I 
shall confine my answer to only two articles of that ap¬ 
parel, viz.: the mitre and the ephod. The mitre was a 
head-dress; towering, and on the front of it just over 
Aaron’s forehead was a golden plate fastened to the mitre, 
and on that inscribed, “ Holiness to the Lord.” He was 
never allowed to exercise his high-priestly functions 
unless he had that mitre on. 

Now the other portion of his dress that requires very 
particular mention is the ephod. The ephod was a gar¬ 
ment, a vestment that had a hole cut in it like you see 
cowboys have in their blankets. It was put on by putting 
it over the head and the head coming up through that 
hole, and it came down to the knees. There was an inner 
robe, of course, but I am talking about the ephod. It was 
carefully hemmed and embroidered around that hole so 
it wouldn’t tear, just as a buttonhole is, to keep it from 
widening. At the bottom of the ephod were those pome¬ 
granates and little bells that I have told you about. And 
those bells were to ring all the time that the high priest 
was performing his functions. It was death to him if 
they stopped, and their sound was the indication to the 
people that the high priest’s work was going on and they, 
on the outside, would pray as long as they heard the 
bells ringing. That is the ephod proper. 

333 


EXODUS 


S3 4 


[XXV-XL 


But that ephod had a breastplate, just a span square, at 
the shoulders; on the ephod was a hook, an ouch, on each 
side. This breastplate was just a span wide and on it 
four rows—three in a row—of very valuable jewels and 
each jewel had inscribed on it the name of one of the 
twelve tribes. So that whenever Aaron acted officially he 
carried over his heart, as a representative, the whole na¬ 
tion of Israel. The twelve tribes of Israel were there, 
carried on his heart. 

That breastplate had two gold chains. The upper part 
of it had rings and these gold chains went up and fas¬ 
tened to the ouch, or hook, on the shoulder piece of the 
ephod. Having put on the ephod, he would then take up 
this breastplate by these two gold chains and hook it to 
those clasps on the ephod. That would let it drop down 
on his breast. Then the sides of this breastplate had 
rings and they were fastened to other hooks on the ephod 
and that kept it from falling forward, kept it in place. 
That is the way it was fastened. 

Now, besides the twelve great jewels that represented 
the twelve tribes of Israel there were two other jewels, 
called the urim and thummim. They went on that breast¬ 
plate. I am not quite sure but that they were under the 
breastplate on the inside. Those names, urim and thum¬ 
mim, mean light and perfection; urim means light, and 
thummim means perfection. The use of those two par¬ 
ticular jewels was to communicate with Jehovah. When 
the cloud would come down and rest over the tent to 
signify that Jehovah wanted to have a talk, the high 
priest would come into the Holy of Holies, or into the 
Holy Place, and the communication would take place. 
Now those two jewels Aaron would look at and how, I 
don’t know and nobody else knows, but through those 
jewels as a medium, he would understand the communi- 


THE TABERNACLE 


335 


xxv-xl] 

cation that had been given to him. Hence a high priest’s 
method of communicating with God was always through 
the urim and thummim. Moses didn’t do it that way, 
because he was a prophet. God spoke to him direct. But 
the high priest could only communicate with God through 
the urim and the thummim. If he lost those jewels he 
couldn’t talk with God. 

Now that ephod carrying the breastplate and those two 
precious stones, the urim and the thummim, was strictly 
an official robe; so that you often find in the accounts in 
the Old Testament the expression, “ Get me the ephod.” 
“ What do you want with the ephod ? ” “ I want to com¬ 
municate with God.” The ephod was the robe of com¬ 
munication. You read in the life of David that he went 
to where the high priest was and told him to put on his 
ephod and answer him certain questions. Well, the high 
priest put on that ephod, went up to the door of the Most 
Holy Place, propounded David’s question, looked at the 
urim and the thummim, understood the answer, and gave 
it to David. You read in the book of Judges that Gideon 
when he assumed to be king had an ephod made so that 
he could communicate with God. And you read in the 
prophet Hosea that Israel shall be a long time without a 
king, without an ephod, and without a prophet. They 
shall have no means of communicating with God. That 
is the condition of Israel this day. They have no temple; 
they have no high priest; they have lost the urim and 
thummim; they have no ephod; no way of communicating 
with God. Since they reject Christ, the only means of 
communication, they are shut off. So that the par¬ 
ticular thing about the breastplate and its urim and thum¬ 
mim is that it was a God-appointed means of com¬ 
municating with the people through the high priest. He 
adopted a different method when He spoke with the 


336 


EXODUS 


[XXV-XL 

prophets. A prophet was higher than a priest. The 
prophets communicated with God directly. There are 
other things about Aaron’s dress, all the details of which 
had a meaning, but these are the great meanings of the 
dress of the high priest. 

20. What were the regular times of service in this 
tabernacle ? 

Ans.—Here were the regular times: The daily serv¬ 
ices every morning and every evening; the Sabbath 
services, that is, once a week; the monthly services, the 
monthly sabbaths, and the annual sabbaths. Those were 
the great festivals, three great festivals, and then the 
Jubilee sabbaths, and in connection with it there came the 
great Day of Atonement. Those were the regular times 
of service, but there were provisions for special times 
of services that I will not now discuss. 

21. What the offerings and their meanings? 

Ans.—I have to answer it so elaborately when I come 
to Leviticus, I only give now in general terms these offer¬ 
ings : 

Sin-offerings, burnt-offerings, eucharistic or thank- 
offerings; in a burnt-offering, all of it had to be burned 
up. Now a sin-offering had to be burned, but every 
burnt-offering was not a sin-offering. I give you this 
example: If a man wanted to consecrate his whole life 
to God and brought an offering, that was a burnt-offer¬ 
ing. Now that offering had to be burned to ashes on 
the brazen altar, to signify that God accepted that entire 
consecration. The sin-offering was also burned. No¬ 
body could eat a part of a sin-offering. But certain parts 
of the eucharistic or thank-offering, or peace-offering, or 
meat-offering could be eaten. Moses ate a certain part, 
and Aaron and his sons a certain part, and the Levites 
certain parts. 


THE TABERNACLE 


337 


xxv-xl] 

22. What the ritual? 

Ans.—The ritual is that set of rules that told them 
just how everything was to be done. Almost the whole 
book of Leviticus is ritual and the larger part of Num¬ 
bers. For instance, it tells just how every particular 
offering must be offered. The ritual is the system of 
rules prescribed, the service and the order of the service 
in all of its parts. 

23. What the place of the sanctuary in the camp and 
order of encampment around it? 

Ans.—I will not answer that question, but leave the 
reader to find out. You have to answer it when you come 
to the book of Leviticus. We will suppose Israel is on 
a march and the cloud stops. As soon as the cloud stops 
Aaron and Moses stop. As soon as they stop, those carry¬ 
ing the furniture of the Most Holy Place, that is, the 
ark and mercy-seat, set it down there covered. And then 
the tent is put over it, and then all the arrangements are 
made about the various articles of the Holy Place and the 
court. Then the fence is put up, i.e., the court fence. 
Now the Levites come in and camp on three sides, and 
every tribe knew just where it was to camp—one on the 
north side, one on the east, one on the west, and so on. 

24. When was this tabernacle completed and what 
the order of setting it up ? 

Ans.—In Exodus xxxix, 42, we have this statement: 
“ According to all that the Lord commanded Moses, so 
the children of Israel made all the work. And Moses 
saw all the work, and, behold, they had done it.” The 
32d verse of that chapter says, “ Then was all the work 
of the tabernacle of the tent of the congregation finished 
and they brought all the material together before Moses.” 
Now the other part of the question was: The order of its 
setting up ? That is explained to you in the last chapter, 


338 EXODUS [xxv-xl 

xl, 1-8, 17, “ And it came to pass in the first month, in 
the second year [that is, since they left Egypt], and on 
the first day of the month that the tabernacle was reared 
up, and Moses reared up the tabernacle.” Then it tells 
how the tent was put up: “ Then Moses took and put 
the testimony into the ark,” brought the ark into its 
place and then all the other things into their places in 
order. The whole thing is described in the last chapter 
of Exodus as to how it was set up. 

25. When was it anointed? 

Ans.—It was anointed after the setting up, and the 
fortieth chapter of Exodus, 9-11, tells about that anoint¬ 
ing, that is, setting it apart. And this is what it says on 
that, “ And thou shalt take the anointing oil and anoint 
the tabernacle and all that is therein and shall hallow it; 
and all the vessels thereof and it shall be holy, and thou 
shalt anoint the altar of the burnt-offering and all its ves¬ 
sels and sanctify the altar and it shall be an altar most 
holy.” “ Thou shalt anoint the laver; thou shalt bring 
Aaron and his sons and make them put on their official 
robes and anoint them. Thus did Moses.” 

26. When was it filled? 

Ans.—As soon as it was set up and was set apart, and 
anointed, the record says (xl, 34), the cloud came down 
and filled the tent and the glory of it was such that Moses 
couldn’t enter it. Then God says, “ My glory sanctifies 
this tent.” When we get into Leviticus, chapter xviii, we 
learn that the tabernacle was sprinkled with blood as well 
as anointed with oil. Now you will see from a careful 
reading of the last chapter of Exodus that a great many 
commandments are given, telling how things are to be 
done. Go to Leviticus and Numbers to find out how 
these orders given in the last chapter of Exodus are 
carried out. They are prescribed here and they tell you 


xxv-xl] THE TABERNACLE 339 

how it is to be done, the orders are given, but in Leviticus 
and Numbers they are carried out. 

27. How dedicated? 

Ans.—Now although the cloud had filled the tent, you 
don't learn how that house was dedicated until you get 
to the seventh chapter of Numbers. Nearly all of Leviti¬ 
cus and about a third of Numbers ought to be studied 
with the last part of Exodus. Then you wouldn’t get 
mixed up. 

I am going to close what I have to say on this by 
giving you a little subsequent history of this tabernacle. 
It went with the Children of Israel through all their wan¬ 
derings. When Joshua got over into the Holy Land he 
set it up at Shiloh and after a while it was moved to Nob. 
There it was in David’s time; then it went to Bethel; then 
in Solomon’s time it was at Gibeon. David erected a 
new tent. He didn’t make a new ark of the covenant and 
new altars and things of that kind, but he did make a new 
tent when he brought the ark up and put it in Jerusalem. 
Then he sent to Gibeon later on and that old tent that 
stood empty at Gibeon was brought but not set up, but 
just rolled up and when the temple was built it was put 
in a chamber of the temple and preserved, how long, I 
don’t know. 

28. Give the parallels of a later date. 

Ans.—Well, just as that ark was first prepared fully 
in all its materials, and these materials were brought to¬ 
gether in one place, just so it was done with the temple. 
So that when they did go to put up the temple they could 
put it up without the sound of hammer. Everything 
so carefully prepared before it went up. Just as the 
church in glory will go up when the time comes. Every 
living stone will be thoroughly complete; body there, 
glorified; soul there, sanctified; no work to be done that 


340 


EXODUS 


[XXV-XL 

day. It just goes into place by assembling. In my 
sermon on the church you will find just how the church 
in glory will be finally set up, and how that when our 
Lord built His church, John the Baptist prepared some of 
the material, which Jesus accepted; and Jesus prepared 
some of the material. But not all the work of the church 
was completed until Christ died. When He died He said, 
“ It is finished.” The church was completed. 

But that church was not anointed until the day of 
Pentecost, just as the old tabernacle had to be anointed 
and then the smoke came and filled it. So the church 
that Jesus built stood open after He left it. He was the 
guide in it. He was the Shekinah as long as He lived, 
but when He went away it stood open until the day of 
Pentecost, when, as Daniel says, the Most Holy Place was 
anointed. The Spirit came down and filled that house 
just as the cloud filled the house that Solomon built, and 
the house that Moses built. 

29. What was the position of the cloud with reference 
to this tabernacle and its signals? 

Ans.—The normal place of this cloud was up in the 
air above the tabernacle. If that cloud moved, they moved, 
and they kept right under it. That was the normal place. 
If that cloud stopped, they stopped. So that one of the 
cloud’s signals was its moving, or its stopping. Another 
one of the cloud’s signals was its coming down and rest¬ 
ing on the tent. That signified a communication was 
desired with the people through the priests. Then the 
high priest put on his ephod with his urim and thummim, 
and went in to receive the communication. If a communi¬ 
cation was wanted with Moses, he needed no ephod, since 
he was a prophet and talked direct with God. 

30. What the value of that cloud for light, shade, de¬ 
fence and guidance? 


THE TABERNACLE 


341 


xxv-xl] 

Ans.—All night that cloud up in the air was one great 
pillar of fire, brighter than all the electric lights of New 
York City. Night couldn’t come up and touch them. 
Just think of it being forty years that they never saw 
the night. Then in the daytime that cloud spread out as 
a shade and kept that burning sun off them. The heat 
didn’t smite them for forty years. Then that cloud by its 
movements infallibly guided them just exactly where to 
go. They didn’t have to make any inquiries concerning 
the road they were to follow. They were to follow the 
cloud. They didn’t have to ask about how soon to start 
next morning. They were just to wait on the cloud. If 
it didn’t move, they were to stay right there if it was a 
year. The whole question was settled as to guidance by 
the cloud. 

How was it as a defence? Well, as enemies came, if 
the enemies were in the rear the cloud moved to the rear 
and got between them and the enemies with the black face 
of it toward the enemies. It had a black face and a light 
face. It would turn the light face toward the Israelites. 
It did that way when Pharaoh came up after them, and 
it looked to him like the blackest night the world ever 
saw, coming right between him and the Israelites, and it 
stayed there; Pharaoh couldn’t see through the black part 
of that cloud that was throwing light over Israel, and the 
Israelites passed through the Red Sea; as soon as they 
were across that cloud rose up and went on ahead of the 
Israelites, and Pharaoh following when he got into the 
midst of the Sea, he and his army were swallowed up. 

31. What was the value of this sanctuary as a centre? 

Ans.—It was absolutely essential to hold this crowd 
together. Put three million people out and no centre of 
unity and they will disintegrate; they will go in every 
direction, but no matter how many the people nor how far 


342 


EXODUS 


[XXV-XL 

out the columns had to spread in marching and the herds 
had to go in grazing, all they had to do at any time was 
to look up; away yonder they could see, if in the day¬ 
time, the pillar of cloud, if at night, the pillar of fire. 

32. What the value of the sanctuary as an oracle? 

Ans.—An oracle is a supernatural voice that answers 

questions and tells you what you are to do. 

33. Where the oracle and what? 

Ans.—The Most Holy Place is many times called the 
oracle, not because it was the oracle, but because it was 
there that the oracle spoke. Nobody can estimate how 
much is the value of an infallible oracle. A case would 
come up that Moses would not know what to do. “ Well, 
I will go and ask the oracle. I will ask God. God will 
tell me what to do.” In the New Testament Jesus says, 
“ While you are now asking me questions [they were 
firing questions at Him all the time, and right then in that 
very discussion of His, Philip says, “ Lord, this,” and 
Thomas says, “ Lord, this,” and Jude says, “ Lord, this ”] 
when the other Advocate comes, you shall ask me nothing. 
You will ask Him. You will ask the Holy Spirit. I am 
going away and you think you will have nobody to answer 
your questions ? ” Disciples are interrogation points. 
They ask questions all the time and often very foolish 
questions, but Jesus patiently listened and answered, but 
when He went away that was the thing that troubled 
them: “ Who will answer our questions? ” “ In that day 
when the Holy Spirit comes, you will ask me nothing. 
Just ask Him,” says Jesus. 

34. How was a communication signified? 

Ans.—If it was the high priest that was to ask a ques¬ 
tion, he would put on the ephod with the urim and thum- 
mim and come to the Holy Place, and if the cloud was 
willing to hear him it would settle down and talk to him, 


xxv-xl] THE TABERNACLE 343 

and the same way with Moses, only Moses didn’t use the 
urim and the thummim. 

35. How was the answer obtained and give examples? 

Ans.—If it was a priest wanting it, the answer was ob¬ 
tained through the urim and the thummim; I will give you 
some examples: I Samuel xxiii, 9-12; I Samuel xxviii, 
6; I Samuel, xxx, 7, 8; Hosea iii, 4. All these are cases 
when questions were brought, the methods by which they 
were brought and how answers were obtained. 

36. What the relative value of this tent and all the 
other tents? 

Ans.—A great many tents were necessary for three 
millions of people. I will let the Psalmist answer that 
question. He says, “ The Lord loveth the gates of Zion 
more than all the tents of Israel.” That tent was worth 
all the rest of them put together. Without that tent the 
others would not stand. It was not only the centre of 
unity and the place where the oracle spoke and by which 
they were defended and guided, but it was the place of 
God’s presence. 

37. What description and explanation the best? 

Ans.—About the best I know is found in Rand- 
McNally’s Atlas of the Bible. If you had that book you 
could turn to a certain page and see the picture of the 
whole tabernacle, see the diagram showing you just how 
every tribe camped, where Moses stood, where Aaron 
stood, etc. 











THE BOOK OF LEVITICUS 





















■ 
































THE BOOK OF LEVITICUS 


I 

PREPARATORY STUDIES—THE SINAITIC 

COVENANT 

This chapter is given catechetically 

W HAT is the theme of this chapter? 

Ans.—The Covenant at Sinai. (A connect¬ 
ive chapter preparatory to the study of Leviti¬ 
cus.) 

2. What is a covenant ? 

Ans.—A voluntary agreement between two parties, 
under stipulations binding either party, having been duly 
ratified. 

3. In general, how many and what covenants are 
there? 

Ans—Two: the Old and New. 

4. Where is the Sinaitic Covenant found? 

Ans.—Exodus xix, i-xxiv, 11. 

5. What is this part of Exodus called? 

Ans.—The Book of the Covenant. 

6. What kind of a covenant was the Sinaitic Cove¬ 
nant? 

Ans.—National. 

7. Who were the two parties in it ? 

Ans.—God and National Israel. 

8. What further may be said as to the kind of cove¬ 
nant it was? 


347 


348 


LEVITICUS 


Ans.—A theocratic covenant, or a covenant of which 
God, the party of the first part, fixed the terms and 
National Israel, the party of the second part, accepted 
them. 

9. This covenant was a development of what? 

Ans.—One of the two covenants made with Abraham. 

10. What were the two covenants made with Abra¬ 
ham? 

Ans.—The grace covenant and the earth or temporal 
covenant. 

11. Where are these two covenants found? 

Ans.—The grace covenant is found in the twelfth and 
twenty-second chapters of Genesis; the earth or temporal 
covenant, in the fifteenth and seventeenth chapters of 
Genesis. 

12. What three New Testament books expound the 
difference between them? 

Ans.—Galatians, Romans and Hebrews. 

13. What the difference in the time of each of the cove¬ 
nants with Abraham and the covenant at Sinai ? 

Ans.—The Sinaitic Covenant was 430 years after the 
grace covenant and 401 years after the temporal or cir¬ 
cumcision covenant. 

14. Of which covenant is the covenant at Sinai a de¬ 
velopment ? 

Ans.—Of the earth or temporal covenant. 

15. What the purposes of the Sinaitic Covenant? 

Ans.—(1) Negatively: Not to justify or give life. (2) 

Positively: (a) A schoolmaster unto Christ; (b) To dis¬ 
cover sin, as a mirror, (c) To provoke to sin, i.e., to re¬ 
veal a depraved nature by provoking to sin in the spirit of 
disobedience, (d) Tutor till Christ, the object of faith, 
came, (e) In its ceremonial part to typify the new cove¬ 
nant in Christ. 


PREPARATORY STUDIES 


340 


16. When was the ceremonial part abrogated? 

Ans.—See Colossians ii, 14. 

17. Where was the Sinaitic Covenant given? 

Ans.—At Sinai in Arabia. 

18. Of what did the giving of this covenant consist? 
Ans.—(1) God’s proposition and their acceptance of it; 

(2) The preparation for it; (3) The signal by which they 
were assembled; (4) The covenant itself; (5) The stipu¬ 
lations of the covenant; (6) The covenant accepted; (7) 
The covenant ratified; (8) The feast of the covenant. 

19. What the three constituent parts of this covenant? 
Ans.—(1) The moral law, or God and the normal 

man, Exodus xx, 1-17; (2) The law of the altar, or God 
and the sinner, Exodus xx, 24-26; (3) The civil code, or 
God and the state, Exodus xxi, i-xxiii, 33. 

20. Leviticus and much of Numbers and Deuteronomy 
are a development of what part of the covenant at Sinai? 

Ans.—The altar. 

21. What does this part of the covenant foreshadow? 
Ans.—The new covenant in Christ. 

22. What are the essentials of approach to God? 

Ans.—(1) A place; (2) A sacrifice; (3) A mediator; 

(4) Times to approach God; (5) A ritual prescribing 
everything; (6) A provision for the priesthood. 

23. Where do we find the account of the writing, read¬ 
ing, accepting and ratifying of this covenant? 

Ans.—Exodus xxiv, 1-8. 

24. What was the feast of the covenant? 

Ans.—This was the feast which was celebrated by 
Moses, Aaron, Nadab and Abihu and seventy of the elders 
of Israel as representatives of Israel on the one part and 
God on the other. Exodus xxiv, 9-11. 

25. What was the witness of the covenant. 

Ans.—God’s copy which was kept in the ark. 


II 


INTRODUCTORY STUDIES—HISTORICAL 

T HIS chapter commences with the book of Leviti¬ 
cus. In commencing the Old Testament there 
were two chapters given as an introduction, one 
on the whole Bible and one on the historical introduction 
to the Pentateuch, considered as one book, and indeed it is 
but one book with five parts; hence the name, Pentateuch, 
a fivefold book. And yet when we commence each par¬ 
ticular book, we devote some time to the historical intro¬ 
duction answering such questions as these: Who wrote 
this book? Where did he write it? Under what circum¬ 
stances? To whom and for whom did he write? and mat¬ 
ters of that kind. So the chapter commences with this 
question: 

Who wrote the book of Leviticus? And the answer is, 
God is the author of this book, through Moses. More 
than any other book in the Bible it consists of the words 
of God, and in almost every instance, as in beginning 
certain parts of every section, it says, “ And God spoke to 
Moses.” Then follows that section giving the words of 
God. Fifty-six times in the twenty-seven chapters is that 
declaration made, “ And God said to Moses.” Not only 
this but the Old Testament references to this book after 
we get out of the Pentateuch ascribe it to God through 
Moses, just as this book itself ascribes it to God through 
Moses. I could take a great deal of space citing pas¬ 
sages to show this but will give only two well-known pas- 

350 


INTRODUCTORY STUDIES 


351 


sages illustrating and establishing the divine and at the 
same time the Mosaic authorship. The first passage of 
the Old Testament is in I Samuel xxi, 6. There we find 
an account of David, in violation of the law of Moses, 
eating the shewbread, but that law of Moses concerning 
the shewbread is found only in the book of Leviticus. 
The second reference is to the land-sabbath, including 
those passages in the prophets. The law of the land-sab¬ 
bath was, that every seven years the land should lie idle. 
No man should plant a crop and God would make the 
crop of the sixth year twofold, and the land-sabbath 
came on the year following. The Israelites did not obey 
this law and in consequence the prophets tell us that they 
had to go into bondage long enough for the land that had 
not been allowed to rest to have time to rest. When we 
come to the New Testament references, which are very 
numerous, I shall ask you to read in the eighth chapter 
of Matthew where our Lord says to the leper He had just 
cleansed, “ Go and show thyself to the priest and offer 
according to Moses’ law, etc.” But that law of Moses 
concerning the leper is found only in the book of Leviti¬ 
cus, yet Jesus calls it the law of Moses. Then in the 
fourteenth chapter of Matthew our Lord speaks of the 
curse of the law of Moses that rests on the child for curs¬ 
ing his parent. That law is to be found in Leviticus, yet 
Jesus calls it the law of Moses. It is also to be found in 
Exodus. Finally, in the New Testament almost the whole 
of the letter to the Hebrews is devoted to the exposition 
of the book of Leviticus and in every case it ascribes the 
authorship to God through Moses. Now, you may won¬ 
der why I should be so particular to establish a point that 
seems to be so thoroughly evident. My reason is that 
modern historical criticism disputes the authorship and 
date of all that part of the Pentateuch contained in Exo- 


352 


LEVITICUS 


dus about the setting up of the tabernacle and all the 
Levitical references to it in the book of Numbers. They 
affirm loudly and blatantly that all that part of the Penta¬ 
teuch was written after the return of the Babylonian 
exiles and by some nameless person. If you were in the 
Divinity School in Chicago, they would teach you that the 
Pentateuch was not written by Moses. Even when Christ 
says it is the law of Moses they say Christ is simply mis¬ 
taken. ' 

The next question is, Where was this book written? 
And here again we have clearer testimony on the “ where” 
than on the “ place ” of any other book in the Bible. It 
expressly says these words, “ God spake to Moses at the 
door of the tabernacle in Mount Sinai.” Everything that 
the book says with reference to that point is just as clear 
as to the authorship, and an utter disproof that the entire 
book of Leviticus was written by one who returned from 
exile after the Babylonian captivity. To my mind, it is 
a most amazing thing in modern days that men can as¬ 
sume that in teaching such a thing they are not harming 
the Bible. They say the man that wrote all these parts of 
the Pentateuch ascribed it to God through Moses in order 
to give it credibility. Then that man must have know¬ 
ingly lied, and the book of Leviticus is from its first sen¬ 
tence a fraud, and if that does not destroy the integrity 
and its authority, I am no judge. I have not a particle 
of respect for those who say these things. They do not 
bring up one iota of historical truth. Dr. Harper, when 
President of the University of Chicago, denied that Moses 
wrote anything, saying that he was too busy a man to be 
writing books. He himself claimed to be a pretty busy 
man and he wrote some, but Moses was so much 
inferior to him that he could not do that. The poison of 
this criticism has crept into nearly all the commentaries 


INTRODUCTORY STUDIES 


353 


of the present time. It is my business to caution you, 
book by book, as vve go on, as to what commentaries are 
not safe. Many were written by semi-infidels. Take 
such a commentary as “ The Expositors’ ” and only two 
or three volumes in it ought to be put into the students’ 
hands. The volume on Leviticus is a good commentary. 
I wouldn’t say that about Exodus, or Numbers, or about 
Deuteronomy, but I do say that in “ The Expositors’ Com¬ 
mentary ” you may safely study the volume on Leviticus. 
Most of the volumes reek with the poison of this historical 
criticism. You may then ask how they are able to pick 
up the Pentateuch and cut it up and say that one part of 
it was written about the time of Josiah, the King of 
Judah, and another part was written at a later date and a 
greater part written by somebody at the return of the 
exiles; where they find in history, either sacred or pro¬ 
fane, any authority for which they may have a better way 
of finding out, is the question. “We judge from the 
book and from the style of the book,” they say. Now 
some sort of respect might be had for their contentions if 
but two of them out of their consciousness evolved the 
same thing, but no two agree. If there were any sound 
principle underlying the contention, then the body of 
them would agree. One of the objects of the Southwest¬ 
ern Baptist Theological Seminary is to raise a breakwater 
that shall hurl back the tide of this teaching that is al¬ 
ready creeping down into our Southland which destroys 
the faith of the people in the Word of God. I hope no 
reader will ever inflict upon himself the painstaking ex¬ 
amination of all of their foolishness as I have done. 

Now we have answered two questions : Who wrote this 
book, and where he wrote it? Now I give an outline of 
the book. 

Section i. Chapters i-vii.—That is a discussion of the 


354? 


LEVITICUS 


offerings or sacrifices. In the approach to God, first, 
there must be a place to meet God; second, there 
must be a means of coming before God, the offering or 
sacrifice; third, there must be mediators who represent 
and stand between the offerer and God, and those are the 
priests; then there must be a time when the offerings 
are to be made. The covenant at Sinai consists, first, 
of the moral code, or God and the Normal Man; second, 
all of Leviticus is based on the law of the altar, or God 
and the Sinner, and the third division is God and the 
State, or the Civil Code. Leviticus has very little to say 
about that; it has something to say, but not just now. We 
are on the first section of the book, offerings or sacrifices. 
Where must the sinner come ? What must he bring in his 
hand ? With what offering did the Israelite come ? That 
is section one. 

Section 2. From eighth to tenth chapter inclusive.— 
That is devoted to an account of how Aaron and his sons 
were consecrated and set apart for their offices. So you 
see that tells one how to approach God. The sinner can¬ 
not come directly to God. Now, if he must not come 
directly to God he must have representatives and they 
must be set apart to do this representative work. So 
three chapters are devoted to an account of how Aaron 
and his sons were consecrated or set apart for their 
offices. 

Section 3. You will wonder how I make this Section 
3, but I do it for a chronological reason. Section 3 is the 
sixteenth chapter of Leviticus. I am intensely desirous 
that you should be great in your service of our Master, 
and if I had to put my finger upon that part of Leviticus 
upon which you must make no mistake, it would be this 
-third section, the sixteenth chapter. Why ? Because that 
tells you what takes place on the Great Day of Atone - 


INTRODUCTORY STUDIES 355 

merit. When we get to it, I will try to fix it so nobody 
can ever fool you about the day of atonement. 

Section 4. We go back and take some chapters we 
passed over, from xi to xv inclusive; that is Section 4. 
Now, of what does this section consist? It is the section 
which makes the distinction between clean and unclean 
meats of every kind. That is brought in there because 
the author has previously considered the offerings. If the 
offering is to be made in order that it may be made by 
authority, somebody must describe that offering. One 
cannot bring the meat of a dog and offer it to God; he 
cannot bring the meat of a buzzard to God. There were 
certain beasts that were called clean beasts and certain 
fowls that were called clean fowls. Now, this section 
tells about those clean and unclean meats. A person likes 
to allegorize and it is a great faculty to have the power to 
discuss things allegorically, if he does not do it as I heard 
a preacher once, who was very ignorant but one of the 
greatest pulpit men I ever knew. He says, “ My brethren, 
the animal that you offer must divide the hoof and must 
chew the cud; the rabbit chews the cud but it has not a 
hoof; the dog has a hoof but it does not chew the cud. 
To illustrate, in spiritual things, the difference between 
Campbellites and Baptists, I will tell you what I saw. I 
was walking through a field one day and saw tracks; all 
these tracks were made by divided hoofs, and I followed 
these tracks until they all came to the water and there 
noticed the difference, for some of the tracks went into 
the water where the animals wallowed in the mud but 
some of them did not. Then I followed them until they 
came up to a tree; one were sheep and they were standing 
there in the shade chewing their cud, and the others were 
hogs, and the hogs were looking at the sheep and they 
tried to do that but they couldn’t do it, and I says, ‘ Why 


356 


LEVITICUS 


didn’t they chew the cud ? ’ Why, they didn’t have any to 
chew. Now, that is the way it is about the Christian ex¬ 
perience. The Campbellites and Baptists make tracks 
very much alike, but when it come to the Christian ex¬ 
perience, the Campbellite does not tell it because he does 
not have any to tell.” He was an uneducated man but his 
talking told; it cut. 

Section 5. This consists of chapter xvii, and that 
chapter contains two leading thoughts. It tells where the 
sacrifices must be brought, and then it has a prohibition 
against blood, that is, a prohibition against eating the 
blood of the sacrifice. 

Section 6. It commences with the eighteenth chapter 
and goes to the 15th verse of the twenty-first chapter. 
This is a group of special laws and is a repetition of the 
law that we have already had in Exodus. In this section, 
or a good part of it, is where Leviticus discusses God and 
the state. 

Section 7. This commences with the 16th verse of the 
twenty-first chapter and ends with the twenty-second 
chapter. There are two thoughts in that. One is con¬ 
cerning the priests and their qualification, and the other 
is concerning priests and the sacrifices, or what the 
priests shall eat. 

Section 8. This consists of the twenty-third chapter, 
and this is the second most important chapter in Leviti¬ 
cus. It treats of the great annual feasts with which we 
have so much to do. When we come to the New Testa¬ 
ment, as the opening of the Acts commences with the 
Pentecost, so we have Pentecost and all others here, in¬ 
cluding the Passover Feasts and the Tabernacles. 

Section 9. This is the smallest in the book, chapter 
xxiv, 1-9. That has simply some details with reference 


INTRODUCTORY STUDIES 357 

to the lampstand and the shewbread that we learn about 
in the book of Exodus. 

Section io. This is the rest of that twenty-fourth 
chapter, and here we come upon a piece of history— 
an account of a terrible tragedy; how the man that 
blasphemed was put to death and how that touches 
God. 

Section n. That consists of the twenty-fifth and 
twenty-sixth chapters and its subject is, first, the Land- 
Sabbath and, second, the Jubilee Sabbath. I have been ac¬ 
customed to rate that at about the fourth most important 
part of Leviticus. The land-sabbath and the Jubilee 
sabbath are important because of the deep spiritual sig¬ 
nificance of them. The greatest tragedy that ever came 
upon a nation came upon the Jews for neglecting their 
land-sabbath. 

Section 12. This embraces the twenty-seventh and 
last chapter, and is devoted to vows and tithes. 

That is an analysis of the book. You must get the 
analytical methods. You ought to be able to take the 
Bible book by book and mentally reduce it to an analysis 
and show the relation of each part to the other. By this 
method it is more easily remembered and more easily 
discussed. I was challenged once at an Institute to give 
in ten minutes an intelligent and interesting account of 
the book of Leviticus, and I gave it in less than ten 
minutes. It is intensely important for you to understand 
this book. It gives in object lessons how a sinner had to 
come before God by means of ceremony and ritual. The 
New Testament will tell you the significance of all this, 
that is, that they were under tutors; “ this is allegorical,” 
says Paul. Before Christ came, they observed these 
Levitical laws, but after Christ, the object of faith, came, 
they were done away, nailed to the cross and we need 


358 


LEVITICUS 


not get back into the shadowy types of things. You will 
also understand the case of the people with whom Moses 
had to do. They came out of Egypt from 210 years’ 
servitude as slaves, with their spirits broken, and to take 
hold of them was just like it would be to take hold of the 
children of savages. They had to be taught by object 
lessons. By object lessons they could be made strong. 
You put a child in a kindergarten that you may teach 
him by object lessons. God wanted to impress upon their 
minds some great lessons, so He used these object les¬ 
sons. 

What are the two kinds of offerings? Those that are 
bloody and those that are not bloody. When Abel came 
before God he offered the bloody. Cain did not offer the 
bloody offering. Cain’s offering would have done very 
well if it had been preceded by the bloody offering. This 
classification gives a general distinction. Now, I will give 
you these offerings in another way. First, the most im¬ 
portant are what are called the burnt-offerings, that is, the 
clean burnt-offerings. They were to be consumed by 
fire, either in whole or in part, and these burnt-offerings 
are spoken of in the Bible with great specializing as to 
whether the whole or a part of them should be burned. 
Then next come what are called meat-offerings; third, 
peace-offerings, then (fourth) sin-offerings. The sin- 
offerings were burnt-offerings, but all burnt-offerings 
were not sin-offerings. 

Note particularly certain things that must always take 
place in presenting some of these offerings, and most of 
them in every one of the offerings. I will recite them: 
(1) Where must they be brought to make the offering? 
The answer is, To the door of the tabernacle. Now, in 
Exodus we have it mapped out clearly for us. At the 
east door of the tabernacle, into the enclosure; there is 


INTRODUCTORY STUDIES 


359 


where they brought the offerings. You ought to carry 
the picture in your mind of the whole tabernacle struc¬ 
ture. So the question is, Where must these offerings be 
brought ? They must be brought to the door of the court 
of the tabernacle. (2) The one who brings it presents it 
and reaches out and puts his hand on it, or the laying on 
of hands. That laying on of hands indicates the transfer. 
Particularly is that the case in a sin-offering, as the offer¬ 
ing is to die for the offerer and directly for his sins. 
Now, we have found two things: first, it must be brought 
to the door of the tabernacle; second, the offerer must 
lay his hands on it; then, third, the killing of the offering 
by the offerer follows. These things take place in most 
of the cases, but not in all of them. But man himself must 
do the killing, just as our sins killed Jesus. Our sins 
nailed Him to the cross. Next is the burning of that 
offering, either in whole or in part. Finally comes the 
sacrificial meal. Sometimes the priests partook of the 
sacrificial meal; sometimes the people who brought the 
offering, in which it was a kind of fellowship meal. Now, 
I say that those things are generally done in burning the 
offerings, but not every one in every case. And you 
will find the distinction set forth where there is an ex¬ 
ception. 

Now, it is of deep spiritual significance to find out just 
where to stop in bringing an offering. It is well to re¬ 
member that in the New Testament. I used to practise 
archery when I was a boy and the competitors would 
draw the bow and let the arrow go, and if we saw the 
arrow going crooked, we would lean over as if our lean¬ 
ing would cause the arrow to come nearer the mark. 
Every one can shoot the arrow, but after it is shot, we 
cannot change its course by anything we do afterwards. 
So we cannot come before God except we start right and 


360 


LEVITICUS 


then follow God’s plan. This is all clearly outlined in 
the book of Leviticus. 

Now we will bring out another point, viz.: this Levit- 
ical law says that you can’t send your offering; you must 
bring it in person. The father cannot bring the son’s of¬ 
fering; the wife, oh, how often, wishes to bring the offer¬ 
ing for her wicked husband! but she cannot. This one 
fundamental doctrine shows that every step is individual. 
You contract for yourself, and you must believe for your¬ 
self ; you turn right-face for yourself and you are baptized 
for yourself. I say to you that you have made a great 
beginning when you study and fix in your mind where 
you are to stop when making an offering. 

EXAMINATION QUESTIONS 

1. Who is the author of Leviticus? 

2. Of what does the book consist? 

3. What can you say of the Old Testament references to the 
book? 

4. Give two of these references and their bearing on the 
authorship of the book. 

5. What can you say of the New Testament references to the 
book? 

6. Give three examples. 

7. Why emphasize this question? 

8. Where was the book written? 

9. What do the higher critics say about it? 

10. How do they assume to find out? 

11. Do they agree among themselves? 

12. What does this show? 

13. What commentary commended? 

14. Give outline of the book. 

15. Give a general classification of offerings. Give example of 
each. 

16. Give a more specific classification. 

17. What in general are essential in making offerings? 

18. What the signification of laying the hands on the head 
of the offering? 

19. What the signification of the offerer’s killing the offering? 

20. What is very important to learn in connection with the 
subject of offerings? 

21. What one thing is absolutely necessary in every offering? 


Ill 


BURNT-OFFERINGS 
Leviticus I—VII 

I MAKE some general statements that apply to those 
books of the Pentateuch before Leviticus. In sac¬ 
rifices of every kind, we commence with the funda¬ 
mental idea of vicarious expiation. Vicarious means “ in 
the place of another,” a substitute dying for another. The 
next advance in thought is the atonement that is made in 
heaven based upon the blood that He shed here upon 
earth. The next advance in thought is, how the blood of 
the expiatory sacrifice is applied to the sinner. The next 
thought is, that but once is the expiatory blood ever 
sprinkled on the mercy-seat; after that, it is sprinkled just 
outside the Most Holy Place. There are sins that a man 
commits after Christ’s blood is applied, and for these 
sins there are offerings and the application to the forgive¬ 
ness of sins; those particular offences and all of these 
things are presented in this book and afterward realized 
in the New Testament idea. 

First of all the offerings is the vicarious offering, 
simply because every other one depends on that. You 
couldn’t offer what is called a sin-offering unless there had 
first been an expiatory offering based upon which the sin- 
offering can be offered. You cannot offer a peace-offer¬ 
ing unless it is based upon the idea of an expiation that 
has preceded that peace-offering. The fundamental idea 
then is the expiatory sacrifice of the substitutionary. 

361 


362 


LEVITICUS 


[i-vii 

The word burnt-offering is a very comprehensive term. 
A burnt-offering may be a sin-offering, it may be a conse¬ 
cration-offering, it may be a meal-offering or it may be a 
peace-offering. Then the burnt-offering may be burnt in 
whole or in part. In the case of a sin-offering it is always 
burnt, every bit of it; so in the consecration-offerings; in 
others only a part is burnt. So it is very easy to get 
your mind confused on the burnt-offering. 

The next thought in connection with the burnt-offering' 
is, where it is burned. There are only two places where 
the burnt-offering can be burned. If it is a sin-offering 
as well as a burnt-offering, it is all burned outside the 
camp; but if it is a consecration-burnt-offering, or of that 
kind, the burning is always on the brazen altar of sacri¬ 
fice. 

Now, let us take up the idea of the burnt-offering which 
is for the purpose of consecration. These offerings or 
consecrations are of great variety. I will tell you why 
directly. One might offer a bullock, a goat, a sheep, a 
turtledove or a young pigeon. Why? Why that variety? 
So that every one could make his offering. Now, poor 
people could not have offered a bullock when they wanted 
to consecrate themselves unto God; it was more than they 
were able to pay. It is an indication of the extreme 
poverty of our Lord’s family that when they went to con¬ 
secrate Him they could not bring any more than a 
pair of turtledoves. The object of the variety is to en¬ 
able everybody to make an offering, whether rich or 
poor. 

The next thought in connection is that this must al¬ 
ways be a whole offering, not a part. If one was rich 
enough to offer a bullock, he must offer the whole bul¬ 
lock and the whole bullock was burned. If he was so poor 
that he could only offer a turtledove, he never presented 


BURNT-OFFERINGS 


i-vii] 


363 


half of the turtledove or pigeon, but presented the whole 
dove, the whole pigeon. 

The next thought is the last on the consecration¬ 
offering, viz.: that no life can be consecrated unless it 
has first been saved; therefore, I say expiation comes 
first. Now leaving the expiation idea, let us see what is 
the thought. When a man is saved, saved by the blood of 
Jesus Christ, what is the first question for him? It is 
that his entire life and everything that he has is to be 
consecrated to God. This is the first thought. That was 
the thought when Jesus was presented in the temple and 
when the appearance of the turtledove indicated the conse¬ 
cration. Everything that He had was laid upon the altar 
of God. Now let us look at an era of Texas history. All 
of you who live in Texas have doubtless heard George 
Truett's sermon on consecration. I am sure he has 
preached it a hundred times. The idea is the giving up 
wholly to God after you are first saved; that you cannot 
give your sinful nature to God, but if the blood of Christ 
has cleansed you, then you can come before God. That is 
what this Levitical law requires. He was to bring the 
turtledove and the whole of it was to be put upon the 
altar. 

Now let us look at the ritual for the consecration-offer¬ 
ing. When one made that offering, first of all he laid 
his hands upon it. That indicates the idea of the transfer 
of his sins to the victim; it also indicates that his faith 
laid hold on that victim for what was done for him in 
that offering. In the New Testament times, you will see 
that the laying on of hands came to signify the imparting 
of the Holy Spirit. 

What was done with the expiatory blood? That was 
carried into the Most Holy Place and sprinkled on the 
mercy-seat. What was done with the blood of the victim 


364j 


LEVITICUS 


[i-vii 

in the consecration-offering? It was never carried and 
sprinkled on the mercy-seat, because it was based on the 
expiation, but it was sprinkled on the sides of the brazen 
altar. Now, get these significant thoughts in your mind. 
This is to show that one must offer to God, without any 
mental reservation whatever, an entire consecration of 
affection, of talents, of money, of everything that he has. 
That is why Brother Truett preached that sermon so 
much. He saw the little things that Christians were 
doing, and the ease with which they go along, and he 
wanted to preach that fundamental sermon which would 
show them that if they were God’s children then they 
were called upon to lay upon the altar themselves and 
everything that they had. As Paul says about the Corin¬ 
thians, that they first gave themselves and then gave 
their contribution. A contribution without giving your¬ 
self doesn’t count. 

Now, let us get the idea of fire, the burning, that is, 
God’s acceptance of the consecration. When the fire con¬ 
sumes utterly the whole of the burnt-offering that is laid 
upon the altar, that fire represents the idea of God’s ac¬ 
ceptance and appropriation of the consecration of the 
entire life. Take, for example, the marvellous scene that 
occurred in the days of Elijah. The people assembled to 
determine who was the true God, Jehovah or Baal. The 
priests of Baal built their altar and laid their sacrifices on 
it, and then from morning till evening prayed: “ O, 

Baal, hear us; now if Baal be God, let him send down the 
fire and show that he accepts it.” Elijah wanted to show 
them the difference in the case of Jehovah. So when he 
had prepared the altar and laid the victim on it, he had 
barrels of water poured on the victim until the water 
filled the trenches around the altar of Jehovah. If Je¬ 
hovah had fire hot enough to consume it, He was surely 


BURNT-OFFERINGS 


365 


i-vii] 

God. When he prayed, “ O, Jehovah, hear us,” fire came 
down and devoured the sacrifice and licked up the water 
out of the trenches. The significance of the fire is that 
it is God’s acceptance of the offering. 

The next thought is that which takes place when the 
smoke of the offering goes up. When you come to the 
New Testament Paul says that when they made their 
offerings it was a sweet savour unto God (Philippians 
iv, 18). 

Now let us take up the next burnt-offerings, i.e., the 
meal-offerings. This is not the consecration-offering. 
That consists, as to its materials, of an agricultural prod¬ 
uct of one kind or another. And when they are brought 
up and put upon the altar, what is meant by it ? It means 
that as the whole life was consecrated to God in the 
consecration-offerings, in this one the idea is service. 
First we have expiation, then consecration, then service, 
and these thoughts presented in the book of Leviticus are 
of real value. If you were to go to preach a sermon on 
this, you would divide it thus: First, expiation, then 
atonement, then the consecration of the entire life which 
has been saved, then service. There is another dis¬ 
tinction between the meal-offering and the consecration¬ 
offering, viz.: that it is intended by the meal-offering to 
make a contribution to the ministers of religion, priests 
in those times, preachers in these times; that it is a 
reasonable service of saved men, consecrated men, de¬ 
voted to service, to minister carnal things to those who 
minister unto them spiritual things. So a large part of 
the offering went to the priest, and to show the applica¬ 
tion of it in the New Testament our Lord Jesus Christ 
says that they went up to the altar and partook of the 
things of the altar. So God has ordained that those who 
preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel. In the last 


366 


LEVITICUS 


[i-vii 

chapter of Leviticus there is this addition made, viz.: the 
tithe of all that God had given them, and that tenth or 
tithe was for keeping up the worship or service of God. 

The peace-offering must never precede the expiation. 
There is no peace with God until the sins are expiated. 
The peace-offering is not all burned, only a part of it. 
The object of the peace-offering was not to obtain peace. 
In other words, the peace-offering relates to peace because 
of expiation, and Paul translates that idea into the New 
Testament language, “ Being justified by faith let us have 
peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” The 
justification is based on the expiation. There is no such 
thing as peace, spiritual peace with God, until first there 
has been justification and atonement and God has de¬ 
clared one justified. In this peace-offering we come also 
to the idea of fellowship. Here the people share with the 
priest in eating of what is not burned. Only certain parts 
are burned; the other parts are kept for a feast and the 
people come up and eat with the officers and the priests 
in this. 

We now come to a distinction in what are called sin- 
offerings. In burning the offerings known as the sin- 
offerings, if one was a king or a priest, he had to make a 
greater offering than if he had been one of the common 
people. Why is that? Now, just think about it. It 
means that if a king’s son sins or if the preacher sins, it 
is a greater offence than if any one else sins, because he 
occupies a higher position. It is required that those who 
hold the vessels of God should be holy. I heard a 
preacher say that he had as much right to do wrong as 
any one in his congregation. Perhaps he did, but the 
responsibility on that preacher to abstain from doing 
wrong is stronger than on a member of his congregation 
and he is held to a stricter and larger account. 


BURNT-OFFERINGS 


367 


i-vii] 

I now call your attention to this feature of the sin- 
offering, viz.: the Old Testament makes it perfectly clear 
that a sin-offering must be made for a sin of which the 
person is unconscious; for sins that are unwittingly done. 
I heard a Methodist preacher give a definition of sin. 
He said, “ Sin is a voluntary transgression of a known 
law.” I told him to strike out “ voluntary ” and strike 
out “ known ” and even then he would not have a true 
definition of sin. Suppose that a little child steps on a 
red-hot iron, does the child’s unwitting act or ignorant act 
keep that hot iron from burning its foot? You hold out 
a candle before a baby; it looks pretty and he will reach 
out and grab it and is burned. The law of nature is fixed. 
Now you apply that to the spiritual world. Law is not 
a sliding scale; law is a fixed thing; a thing is right or a 
thing is wrong, utterly regardless of whether we know it 
to be right or know it to be wrong. David offers this 
prayer: “ Cleanse thou me from secret faults.” Not 

faults that he is keeping secret, but of which he is utterly 
unconscious. And it is in this connection that I must 
speak of a very important matter of which Leviticus does 
not treat at all, viz.: the sin for which no offering can 
be made. We learn about it when we come to Numbers. 
The soul that doeth in ignorance, the atonement shall be 
made for that sin; the soul that doeth presumptuously, no 
atonement can be made. If we sin wilfully after we have 
received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no 
more sacrifice for sin but the certain fearful looking for 
judgment. Now, Jesus taught that a certain kind of sin 
is an eternal sin. It has never forgiveness, neither in this 
world nor in the world to come. That does not mean that 
some sins are forgiven here and some over yonder, but 
that God may forgive sins as for eternity and yet chas¬ 
tise the sinner here upon earth. When you come to the 


368 


LEVITICUS 


[i-vn 

New Testament, particularly, to discuss the unpardonable 
sin, that is the sin for which there is no provision for 
forgiveness. I will show you how easily one may become 
possessed with the idea of committing the unpardonable 
sin. I received a letter from a soldier in the regular army 
last year. He said, “ I have never met you but I have 
heard that you have studied the Bible a great deal. I am 
in deep trouble. I have knowingly and wilfully com¬ 
mitted sin.” Then he quoted that passage, “ If we sin 
wilfully.” And he says, “ Have I not committed the 
unpardonable sin ? ” I wrote him that his trouble arose 
from misunderstanding the kind of knowledge that 
meant; that it did not mean a sin against the intellectual 
knowledge. The unpardonable sin is a sin against spiri¬ 
tual knowledge. Paul says that he sinned ignorantly, 
and that did not mean that he was intellectually ignorant 
of the Old Testament, but he meant that he did not have 
the spiritual light that points to Jesus Christ. The only 
way in which a man could commit the sin for which 
there is no atonement to be made is in a case like this: 
We will suppose that a great meeting is in progress, in 
which the power of God is marvellously displayed; in 
which the people of God are praying; in which the pres¬ 
ence of God is felt in their gathering by any Christian. 
If, while preaching is going on in such a meeting and 
Jesus Christ is held up, a sinner is impressed by the 
spirit of God that the preacher is telling the truth, that he 
(the sinner) is a lost soul, and that Jesus is his appointed 
Saviour, and he, under that spiritual knowledge, feels im¬ 
pressed to make a movement forward and accept Christ 
and turns away from that spiritual knowledge and says 
“ No,” deliberately, maliciously and wilfully walking 
away from it, that is the unpardonable sin. I heard a 
preacher once, when he saw a boy and girl laughing, ac- 


BURNT-OFFERINGS 


369 


i-vii] 

cuse them of committing the unpardonable sin. I thought 
he was committing a great sin to make such accusation. 
Now I have discussed the sin for which there is no offer¬ 
ing. I have brought it in here because I don’t want to 
discuss it twice. 

Suppose I should ask this question: What is the dif¬ 
ference between the sin-offering and the trespass-offer¬ 
ing? I will mention one; it is not all. Suppose a man in 
ancient times killed another one, the sin-offering was 
made; suppose he stole one hundred dollars from a man, 
then he brought the trespass-offering; one is called a sin- 
offering and the other, trespass-offering. In the trespass¬ 
offering, one has to make restitution before he gets for¬ 
giveness. He can’t restore if he has killed a man; but 
if he has stolen money, if it is in his power, he must 
give the money back. Shakespeare asks this question: 
“ Can a man be pardoned and retain the offence ? ” 
If he slips into your room and appropriates a piece of 
your property and goes off and says, “ God forgive me,” 
God says, “ Go and put the property back.” In the sin-of¬ 
fering, there is no restitution on his part; there, the great 
sacrifice of Jesus is the one; but here is something he can 
do. Now, who can answer this question: What denomi¬ 
nation of Christians insists most on restitution where one 
has committed the trespass? I am sorry that I cannot 
say that it is the Baptists. It is the Roman Catholics. 
Just let any one come and confess to a priest and want 
absolution—I don’t believe in confessing to a priest, but 
let that man come there and make that confession—and 
that priest will insist on restitution before he will absolve 
him; no way to get out of it. How is it with most 
people on that matter? They are ashamed to make resti¬ 
tution, because restitution exposes them. They often do 
it secretly. For instance, a man by unrighteousness, by 


370 


LEVITICUS 


[i-vii 

burdening a thousand hearts, by bringing desolation into 
a thousand homes, will acquire an immense fortune. He 
does not feel right about it and wants to ease his con¬ 
science. He won’t come out and say, “ I did wrong,” 
but he says, “ I will give to one of the religious denomi¬ 
nations, or I will build a church, or I will establish some 
good charity.” Do you know that a unique part of 
American history illustrates that part of the case? That 
is the conscience fund. The United States had to estab¬ 
lish a conscience fund. They got so many letters of this 
kind unsigned: “ I robbed the government by withhold¬ 
ing a tax that was due. I should have paid it. My con¬ 
science so lashes me under religious conviction that 1 
am compelled now to put that money back.” Now, this 
same conscience fund has assumed enormous propor¬ 
tions. Men feel that they do not want to come out and 
make a confession. They do not come out and say, “ Mr. 
A. and Mr. B. confess to have stolen from the govern¬ 
ment.” It is a fine thing in America that conscience takes 
hold of us. 

Now, study the difference in the trespass-offering and 
the sin-offering and you will see that in the case of the 
trespass-offering there must be restitution not only in 
the law which was broken but fourfold. Zacchseus in 
the New Testament times says, “ Lord, if I have wronged 
anybody I restore it fourfold,” which is a reference to 
this law. As I have borne testimony to the fidelity of the 
Roman Catholics, I will tell you an amusing thing in 
literature. One of the greatest historic romancers was 
Sir Walter Scott, who wrote the book, “ The Betrothed.” 
A certain castle was left in charge of a knight, to be held 
faithfully until the owner returned from the Holy Land. 
A certain number of Flemish people had come over from 
Flanders and had established a colony under the walls 


BURNT-OFFERINGS 


371 


i-vii] 

of the castle. When the old knight went out to fight his 
battle in which he thought he would die, he put this old 
Flemish man in charge of his castle. The priest dis¬ 
trusted the Flemish man. He believed the Fleming was 
to receive overtures from the enemy. The danger was 
that they were about to destroy the castle. So they man¬ 
aged to get him to hold parley that if they would deliver 
a certain number of cattle, that he would consider open¬ 
ing the gates to them. The old priest disguised himself 
and heard the Fleming make that treaty and he de¬ 
termined to denounce him. The Fleming took the priest 
aside and said: “ Father, I have a daughter, Rose. I got 
into financial trouble and I promised a man that I would 
give him my daughter if he would give me four hundred 
marks, and now I have received the four hundred marks 
and I don’t want to give my daughter.” “ Sir, you must 
restore the four hundred marks.” “ Well, but, Father,” he 
says, “ those cattle you see coming yonder are the marks 
I received, the daughter Rose is this castle. Now, must 
I restore those cattle? ” “ No, you fool, the church makes 
a distinction in certain matters.” And the priest was 
right in his interpretation, because to restore those cattle 
meant not being true to the trust of the old knight and 
was to restore that over which the Fleming had no juris¬ 
diction. He was very much amazed that he did not in¬ 
tend to betray him. 

Suppose a man is called in to witness in a court and 
gives false testimony and an innocent man is made to 
suffer. He dies on the gallows. Now, this man whose 
false testimony convicted him has come under convic¬ 
tion himself, spiritual conviction. That prisoner is dead 
and gone. He brings the case to a preacher. “ Now, 
what must I do. I cannot restore that man’s life.” The 
preacher says, “ No, but you can restore his reputation; 


372 


LEVITICUS 


[i-vii 

you can take the shame off his wife and children, and 
you must come out. I cannot encourage you that God 
will save you if you do not come out openly before the 
world and admit your guilt.” That illustrates the resti¬ 
tution idea; that if you cannot restore all and can restore 
part, you must restore all that you can. 


EXAMINATION QUESTIONS 

1. Give a general statement applying to all the books of the 
Pentateuch touching sacrifices. 

2 . What the signification of the blood sprinkled outside the 
Most Holy Place? 

3. What offering precedes all others and why? 

4. What can you say of the sweep of burnt-offerings? 

5. What the different kinds of burnt-offerings? 

6. What the order of these offerings? 

7. What distinction in the burning? 

8. Where were they burned? 

9. What three characteristics of the consecration-offerings? 

10. Upon what must the consecration-offering be based? 

11. What modern preacher has a great sermon on consecration 
and what the main point? 

12. What does the ritual prescribe for the consecration-offer- 
ing? 

13. What the signification of the laying on of hands? 

14. What was done with the blood? 

15. If an expiatory offering, where placed and why? 

16. What the signification of the fire in the consecration¬ 
offering? 

17. What Old Testament illustration of this idea of fire? 

18. What does Paul say of this from God's viewpoint? 

19. What is the idea in the meal-offering? 

20. Give the Scriptural idea of the sacrifices. 

21. What the object in the meal-offering? 

22. What New Testament correspondence to this teaching? 

23. What was added later to supplement the offerings? 

24. In the peace-offering, how much burned? 

25. What the object, negatively and positively? 

26. In the case of the sin-offering, how burned? 

27. Where was the blood placed? 

28. What distinction in the case of kings and priests, and 
why? 

29. For what kind of sins were sin-offerings made? 

30. What is sometimes given as a definition of sin? 

31. What words should be stricken from this definition? 


I-VIl] 


BURNT-OFFERINGS 


373 


32. Is this, then, a good definition, and why? 

33. What great sin is not discussed in Leviticus? 

34. What is that sin? 

35. What distinction between sin-offering and trespass-offer¬ 
ing? 

36. What said Shakespeare on this point? 

37. What denomination insists most upon this? 

38. How is this with most people? 

39. How do some attempt to make restitution? 

40. How has Uncle Sam provided for this? 

41. Give a New Testament reference to the law of the tres¬ 
pass-offering. 

42. What the point in the illustration from Scott? 

43. What the relation of this law of the trespass-offering to 
salvation? Illustrate. 


IV 


CONSECRATION OF AARON AND HIS SONS 

Leviticus VIII—X 

T HE present chapter is on the eighth, ninth and 
tenth chapters of the book of Leviticus. You will 
remember that in the latter part of the book of 
Exodus we have an account of the setting up of the 
tabernacle, its altar and much of its furniture, as the place 
where the sinner was to meet God. In the preceding 
chapters of Leviticus, that is, from one to seven inclusive, 
we have considered with what the sinner appears before 
God, that is, the offerings of the various kinds, the sac¬ 
rifices. Now in the eighth and ninth chapters of Leviti¬ 
cus we have the intermediaries, or those through whom 
the sinner appears before God, Aaron and his sons as 
priests, and these two chapters tell us about the conse¬ 
cration of Aaron and his two sons to this important 
office and all the ritual in connection with the ceremonies 
of the day, and the tenth chapter, which is the last of the 
lesson, tells us about the violation of the law by two of 
Aaron’s sons and their consequent death by the hand of 
God, and thence follows a law, very important, relating 
to wine in connection with the priesthood. Now, I wish 
to call your attention to some preliminary observations. 

Neither Aaron nor his sons in the priesthood, nor 
Moses in the leadership, nor Joshua in the captainship, 
nor any one of them took the honour of the position upon 

374 


375 


vih-x] CONSECRATION OF AARON 

himself, but God appointed these men to this particular 
service and they all apply to the New Testament as well 
as to the Old Testament. A man cannot decide for him¬ 
self alone that he is to be a minister of Jesus Christ. 
He has to be, first, spiritually impressed that he is called 
to preach, but there is a judge that must pass upon that 
call and ordain men. Some of the saddest things in the 
history of religion have been the mistakes on the part of 
a particular people about taking the honour of the office of 
Christ's ministry unto themselves. They have said, “ I 
have been called to preach. If I preach I will baptize 
people,” and they go out as free lances and they bring 
great confusion in the camps of God. I know one noted 
case in McLennan County where a man decided he had 
all the right to decide these things for himself and ig¬ 
nored all church authority in the matter. He is now 
the worst “ played out ” man I ever saw. Just three 
years ago I received an exceedingly sad letter from an 
old man, 67 years old. He said, “ In my early days I felt 
called of God to preach. I didn’t believe that churches or 
anybody else had any ‘ say-so ’ about it. I went out and 
preached and they heard me, but after a while they be¬ 
came tired of me and dropped me. I am too old now to 
preach, but I need to be taken care of.” I wrote back to 
him that the plea had come too late; that we were not 
justified in taking care of a man now that had never be¬ 
fore called upon the church or God’s people to help him. 
There was no remedy for his condition. 

My next general observation is that the method of this 
service was equally appointed of God. In the tenth chap¬ 
ter we are to consider the awful tragedy that came upon 
Aaron’s two sons because they disregarded God’s law 
relating to the way of coming before Him for the 
people. 


376 


LEVITICUS 


[vm-x 

The next thing to determine is, what was the place 
of the consecration of Aaron and his sons ? It was at the 
door of the court of the tabernacle, the east gate. It was 
a very solemn occasion and a matter that did not concern 
Aaron and his sons alone, because they were in their 
offices to act as representatives, and so the entire congre¬ 
gation of Israel was brought together not only to witness 
but to participate in the setting apart of these men for 
their office. That was the place and the method. 

Now, what was brought to be used in this consecration? 
There were brought the offerings, or sacrifices, that were 
to be employed in the consecration service, and all the 
holy vestments that these men were to wear as represent¬ 
ing God. 

The next question is, What were the steps or prepara¬ 
tion in the consecration of Aaron and his sons? First, 
they were bathed; second, they that bore the vestments of 
the Lord came in and were arrayed in these vestments 
which symbolized and refer to the spiritual, not the 
physical. They were clothed in the uniform of the vest¬ 
ment peculiar to their work. They were unlike that of 
any other man in all Israel. The next step in the conse¬ 
cration was the anointing. I request every reader to 
get a copy of the first volume of my published sermons 
and read my sermon on “ The Anointed One,” and that 
sermon will tell you about the anointing oil and how pre¬ 
pared. It was a particular recipe and there is none like 
it in the world, and it was a capital offence to use that 
holy anointing oil for anything except what God had 
prescribed, or to even compound it, and the purposes for 
which that holy anointing oil was to be used were as fol¬ 
lows: The tabernacle itself, the altar and all its furni¬ 
ture were to be anointed; then the high priest was to be 
anointed with it; the prophet was to be anointed with it; 


vm-xj CONSECRATION OF AARON 37T 

the sacrifice and the king were to be anointed with it. So 
when Jesus came to be a prophet, high priest, king and 
sacrifice, He received His anointing, not in the symboli¬ 
cal oil but in what the symbolical oil represented, to wit, 
the Holy Spirit. When He was baptized, He prayed that 
God would qualify Him for the great work into which 
He was about to step, and in answer to that prayer the 
Holy Spirit descended in the form of a dove, and the gos¬ 
pels tell us that He was anointed in the Holy Spirit. 
John said: “ I knew him not; but he that sent me to bap¬ 
tize in water, he said unto me, Upon whomsoever thou 
shalt see the Spirit descending,” etc., “ he baptizeth in the 
Holy Spirit.” Then he says, “ Behold the Lamb of God 
that taketh away the sin of the world.” And in the 
fourth chapter of Luke we have an account in our Lord’s 
own words where He says that He was anointed to 
preach the gospel to the poor and to preach the acceptable 
year of the Lord. Now, what were the steps? Bathed, 
clothed, anointed. These were the preliminaries. 

Now, what follows? The sacrifices appointed for the 
occasion. These, a bullock as a sin-offering, for Aaron’s 
sins must be atoned for before he can exercise his func¬ 
tions in the Kingdom of God; and second, the ram for the 
burnt-offering, that is, the offering to God, if God accepts 
it by sending down fire to burn it up; and third, another 
ram as a consecration-offering. If Aaron says, “ I want 
to be consecrated to the divine service,” and the Lord 
accepts it, then fire comes down and burns up the offering. 
He accepts it. Then comes the consecration-offering, and 
the second ram. The important thing here to notice is 
the distinction in making these three offerings. A sin- 
offering is to be burned outside the camp, like Jesus, as 
the sin-offering, was taken without the camp and nailed 
to the cross. An offering to God, that is, the burnt-offer- 


378 


LEVITICUS 


[viii-x 

ing, was placed on the brazen altar of sacrifice and the 
fire of God came down and burnt it up to show that God 
accepted it. Now, the other offering of consecration 
went up as a sweet savour unto God, that is, God seeing 
Aaron and his sons duly bathed, clothed and anointed, 
duly clad in the vestments of holiness, accepted by the 
first ram the burnt-offering; now the sweet smelling 
savour goes up to God to indicate that the ceremony was 
finished, that is, the consecration part of it, the second 
ram. It is very important that you notice what is done 
with the blood of that ram. Moses took the blood of the 
consecration-offering, put it upon the tip of Aaron’s right 
ear, upon the thumb of his right hand and upon the 
great toe of his right foot, and he did that for the sons 
of Aaron. Now, what does this symbolism teach? That 
if I do consecrate my life to the service of God, my ear 
must hear for Him, my hand must work for Him, my 
foot must walk for Him in His appointed way. I think 
you can very easily see the full force of that. 

What next follows this? Aaron and his sons, having 
been consecrated, must pass a week in isolation. When 
that week is done and the eighth day comes, a formal, 
representative service is held, the first in the tabernacle. 
Now, what have you here? A place to meet God, then 
offerings with which to approach God and mediators 
through whom one may approach God. All this complete, 
now the services of the sanctuary are ready to be opened. 
So let there be a representative service held, everything 
being now ready. As this ninth chapter tells about the 
services held in that tabernacle, everything being ready 
for that service, I shall not go into the details. They are 
easy to understand as you read them, but there is one 
feature of it that I want to call your attention to, viz.: 
When Aaron and his sons thus instructed, thus qualified, 



379 


viii-x] CONSECRATION OF AARON 

had completed the service, all the people participated in 
it, then Aaron came out of the tabernacle and lifted up 
his hands and blessed the people, pronounced the benedic¬ 
tion. You know “ benediction ” means “ speaking well 
for you.” Now, what was that benediction? You find 
it in the sixth chapter of the next book. (You can use 
that form if you want to. I have known a great many 
preachers that used it.) Numbers vi, 24-27: “Jehovah 
bless thee, and keep thee; Jehovah make his face to shine 
upon thee, and be gracious unto thee; Jehovah lift up his 
countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.” Now, 
when we come to dismiss the congregation, we want to 
put God’s name on the congregation and we sometimes 
use the doxology in this form: “ In the name of the 
Triune God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” That puts 
the name of God on the people. “ The blessings of the 
Father, the blessings of the Son and the blessings of the 
Holy Spirit be upon you.” What is the basis of the 
benediction? What does it root in? Aaron could not 
say, “ The Lord bless thee, and the Lord keep thee, and 
be gracious unto thee and give thee peace,” if something 
hadn’t preceded. What was it ? The atonement that had 
been made for the sins of the people. The benediction is 
based upon atonement, not a mere flutter of hands and 
“ the Lord be with you, the Lord keep you, the Lord 
bless you and be gracious unto you.” Remember that we 
can’t invoke the blessings of the Lord upon the people 
except in the name of Jesus Christ, who died for all men. 

The next chapter, the ninth, gives an account of how 
God’s answer came. It came visibly; it came in a start¬ 
ling manner that impressed the people. God ratified the 
service in two particulars. The Lord had said to Moses, 
“ If you will establish my worship just as I have pre¬ 
scribed, the people shall see the glory of the Lord.” So 


380 


LEVITICUS 


[vm-x 

at the end of that public service they saw the visible 
representation of God. The cloud of fire came down and 
rested upon the tabernacle and all the people knew that 
God was approving everything that had been done, and 
in the second place, fire came down and burnt the offering 
that had been put upon the altar in the sight of the people. 
The sacrifice that was left upon that fire was consumed to 
ashes and the people felt that it was God. This house 
was now dedicated to God for worship. So it is when 
we say to the Lord, “ The money which thou didst give to 
us we used to build this house, and we wish this building 
to be set apart for thy glory,” and thus invoke divine 
blessings upon its service. 

I have only two other things to discuss in this chap¬ 
ter. First, Nadab and Abihu, they were sons of Aaron. 
God had called them to this office; they had been conse¬ 
crated to this office and now they presumed on it. God 
says, “ When you go to kindle incense which represents 
the prayers of the people, don’t kindle it with common 
fire. Take a live coal from the brazen pan that holds the 
fire that never goes out, the altar-fire, and you kindle the 
incense with that.” The thought is this, that you can’t 
pray if the prayer is based upon a selfish motive. The 
prayer amounts to nothing. “ If you ask anything in my 
name and not disregarding my plan, then I will hear 
you.” Now, Nadab and Abihu thought it not at all 
necessary to obey God’s plan; without any regard to the 
pattern which is shown in the Old Testament these two 
men presumed, when they were appointed, to wave the 
common fire which they picked up from the camp, and as 
soon as they waved it before God they were struck dead 
as by lightning and the fire went out and burned them 
to death in the flames. It was an awful lesson, that we 
cannot change what God prescribes. We have no right 


381 


vm-x] CONSECRATION OF AARON 

to deviate to the left hand or to the right hand. But the 
man in the Arctic regions will say, “ It is cold here; we 
will sprinkle a little water; we hope this baby is going to 
be a Christian, so we will baptize it,” utterly disregard¬ 
ing the Saviour of men. That lesson of Nadab and 
Abihu you should lay upon your hearts very solemnly. 

Now we come to the last thought, and this is quite im¬ 
portant. It is the law about the officers approaching God. 
The law is this: “ Thou shalt not take wine nor any 

strong drink as thou goest up to the service before God 
and the people.” How often a preacher is tempted; his 
work has been hard and his nerves are all unstrung; he 
wants to preach a good sermon and feels that if he had 
a stimulant of some kind he could preach a good ser¬ 
mon. He asks, “ Why not take a goblet of wine or a 
toddy?” Woe to the preacher that ever does it! It is 
literally a slap in the face of God. I never felt such 
horror as when I was visiting in a certain city and the 
pastor asked me to preach for him, and when he went to 
introduce me to the audience, his breath nearly knocked 
me down. People tell me that he never preached except 
he keyed up that way, and I know an evangelist who did 
the same thing. He, just before preaching, because of a 
physical breakdown, got in the habit of stimulating with 
opiates, and before I was a preacher there was a man in 
Texas, said to be the most eloquent preacher in those days 
of Texas, who could sway men at his will. He also got 
to doing that very thing. Now I will tell you a scene as 
witnessed by Dr. Burleson, the man who told it to me. 
He says he received a message to visit a great revivalist. 
(Shall I call his name? Let it rest in peace.) When 
he got into the house, he found him a physical and 
mental wreck. He looked like one who had delirium 
tremens. He was calling out, “ Lost, lost, lost! ” and 


382 


LEVITICUS 


[viii-x 

kicking the footboard clear off the bed. He says, “ Dr. 
Burleson, I have ruined my life by stimulating myself 
just before I went to preach, and now I am a drunkard 
covered with shame and I loathe myself and am tempted 
every hour of my life to commit suicide.” When you 
get further on in this law, you will find that the law says 
that the king and the judge shall take no strong drink 
lest their minds be swayed and they pervert judgment. 
Now, you young preachers, just remember never to com¬ 
mence taking stimulants, no matter how tired and “ fraz¬ 
zled out ” you are. If you have to have medicine, let the 
doctor prescribe for you and be treated as a sick man, 
but do not “ be drunk with wine wherein is riot, but be 
intoxicated with the Holy Spirit.” There is the stimulant 
for you, the Spirit of God. 

Now, the next chapter is on a matter of such delicacy 
that I shall have to trust to your reading more than to 
my discussion. The chapters are xi, xii, xiii, xiv and xv, 
on the various clean and unclean animals. Part of it 
can easily be discussed, and part of it your own delicacy 
will tell you how to study. The unclean are the lepers 
and the unclean animals. Certain are clean and certain 
are unclean. There are unclean birds, beasts and fishes, 
and some creeping things which are clean. Things which 
may be eaten; as, certain offerings. Now, very care¬ 
fully study the sixteenth chapter of Leviticus. It is the 
heart of everything in the book, both Old Testament 
and New Testament. The subject is “ The Day of Atone¬ 
ment.” 

EXAMINATION QUESTIONS 

1. Of what do the first seven chapters of Leviticus treat? 

2. Of what do chapters viii and ix treat? 

3. Of what does the tenth treat? 


vni-x] CONSECRATION OF AARON 383 

4. What three general observations relative to Aaron and 
his sons and their office? 

5. What New Testament parallels to these observations? 

6. What was the place of the consecration of Aaron and his 
sons? 

7. What the method of this consecration? 

8. What was brought to be used in this consecration service? 

9. What were the preliminary steps in the consecration? 

10. What were the vestments of the priests? Of the high 
priests? 

11. Discuss fully the anointing oil and its antitype. 

12. What were the sacrifices appointed for the occasion? 

13. What the signification of each? 

14. What distinction in making these three offerings? 

15. What was done with the blood of the ram of conse¬ 
cration? 

16. What the signification of this? 

17. What next follows this? 

18. What was then done on the eighth day? 

19. Where do we find a description of it? Give it. 

20. What was the closing part of this service? 

21. What does the word “benediction” mean etymologically? 

22. What was the form of this benediction and where do you 
find it? 

23. What is the basis of a benediction and the New Testament 
application ? 

24. How did God’s answer come? 

25. In what two ways did God ratify what was done? 

26. What awful tragedy in this connection? 

27. What had they done? 

28. What does this incense symbolize and what the lesson 
to us? 

29. What law is given in this connection? Give examples. 

30. What should be the preacher’s stimulant? Give scripture. 


V 


THE GREAT DAY OF ATONEMENT 
Leviticus XVI 

I PRESENT this chapter catechetically: Questions 
on the Great Day of Atonement, Leviticus xvi. 
I. What requires the sixteenth chapter of Leviti¬ 
cus to immediately follow the tenth chapter? 

Ans.—Both the chronological order and the context 
require it. The first verse connects chronologically and 
expressly with the death of Nadab and Abihu in chapter 
x. The contextual line of thought as repeatedly given is 
this: 

(i) A place for the sinner to appear before Jehovah, 
given in Exodus. 

(2) With what the sinner shall come—or offerings 
and sacrifices, Leviticus i, 7. 

(3) Through whom the sinner shall approach Jehovah, 
or the appointed priesthood, Leviticus viii. 

(4) Inauguration of the tabernacle service, Leviticus 
ix. 

(5) The divine punishment for breach of the order of 
this service, Leviticus x. 

(6) The culmination of this service in the Day of 
Atonement. All other matters in the book are subsidiary 
to this climax. So that the chronological order and the 
contextual order require that Leviticus xvi shall be con¬ 
sidered immediately after Leviticus x. 

384 


xvi] GREAT DAY OF ATONEMENT 385 

2. What the importance of this section of Leviticus in 
the judgment of the Jews? 

Ans.—They counted it the most important part of the 
Pentateuch. It was called by pre-eminence “ The Day,” 
“ The Great Day of the Holy Year.” It was reckoned 
by them as the very heart and citadel of their law. 

3. What the relation of this chapter on the atonement 
to the prophets? 

Ans.—It is the basis of all the evangelical sections of 
the prophets and the Psalms. 

4. How is it regarded by New Testament authors? 

Ans.—As the most expressive and vital of all the Old 

Testament foreshadowings of the Messiah’s vicarious 
sacrifice and the atonement based thereon. Now, any 
book or section of the Bible that holds such a place in the 
Jewish thought, in the prophets and in the New Testa¬ 
ment must be of extraordinary importance. 

5. What New Testament book elaborately expounds 
this chapter? 

Ans.—The letter to the Hebrews. 

6. What can be said of the uniqueness of its cere¬ 
monials? 

Ans.—There is nothing like it elsewhere in the world, 
either in the Pentateuch or other parts of the Bible, and 
nothing corresponds to it in the worship of heathenism. 
The whole conception is impossible of human origin; 
the ordinance must have been, as our Lord frequently 
taught, a supernatural revelation, since no man could 
have ever thought it out, and only men aided by the 
Holy Spirit would be able to grasp it. Indeed, to this 
day and throughout their history, the unaided Jewish 
mind is unable to grasp the idea of a suffering Messiah, 
vicariously expiating the sins of the people. They did 


386 


LEVITICUS 


[xvi 

not on this point believe their own prophets. Isaiah in 
the commencement of that remarkable chapter (liii) 
complains, “ Lord, who hath believed our report ? ” and 
then gives his particulars of the suffering Messiah. The 
apostles themselves very slowly accepted it. In the six¬ 
teenth chapter of Matthew, just after His great confes¬ 
sion, Peter rebuked Christ for distinctly declaring His 
death and said, “ God forbid it,” and the disciples, even 
after the resurrection, clung with an almost incorrigible 
persistency to those perceptions of the kings, after this 
world, so that Jesus said, “ O fools and slow of heart to 
believe all that the prophets have taught; how that the 
Messiah must needs suffer and that remission of sins 
should be preached in his name.” It has ever been the 
issue between the Jew and the Christian. 

7. What do the radical critics urge against it? 

Ans.—(1) That the sense of sin and the need of ex¬ 
piation and of atonement based thereon, as expressed by 
this ordinance, could not have existed in the days of 
Moses. (2) They urge that later Jewish history contains 
no record of the observance of such a day of atonement. 
(3) They urge that only after their return from Baby¬ 
lonian captivity was such a sense of sin called for by 
this ordinance, developed in the Jewish mind. Now, I 
have put in three sentences the contents of about fifty 
books. This is the quintessence of radical criticism on 
Leviticus. 

8. What is your reply thereto? 

Ans.—(1) The chief part of the objection of the 
radical critics is based on the assumption of a human 
origin of the ordinance, namely, that it must arise from 
an adequate human sense of sin. But this sense of sin 
the Jews never had in their whole history and least of 
all on their return from Babylonian captivity. The ob- 


xvi] GREAT DAY OF ATONEMENT 387 

ject of the ordinance was not to give man’s sense of sin, 
but God’s sense of sin, and thereby to develop in man 
the proper sense of sin. The Jews as a nation not only 
never had the sense of sin called for by this ordinance at 
the time that the radical critics affirm after the Babylon¬ 
ian exile, but they never will have it until the time yet 
future set forth in Isaiah lxvi, 8, 9; Ezekiel xxxvi, 16, 
xxxvii, 14; Zechariah xii, 10, xiii, 1. I could write many 
volumes on these passages of Scripture. They tell when 
the Jews will understand the day of atonement; they 
tell how it will be brought about by the outpouring of the 
Holy Spirit. (2) Reply to the second objection of the 
radical critics: It is true that the later Biblical history 
does not indeed specifically record an observance of this 
day and of thousands of other matters, since it was never 
intended to be complete history, but only an outline of 
salient points bearing on the future kingdom of God. 
But while there is no specific reference, yet very many 
references in the prophets and Psalms necessarily pre¬ 
suppose this ordinance and its observance. Indeed they 
would be inexplicable without it. 

(3) Reply to the third part of the radical criticism: 
The record of the ordinance here in its proper place not 
only expressly refers it to Moses at Mt. Sinai, but gives 
what no post-exile author would have thought of, viz.: 
the occasion of its introduction in the death of Nadab 
and Abihu, Leviticus xvi, 1. (4) Reply to the radical 

critics’ theory: There is not the slightest scrap of his¬ 
torical evidence to support the incredible feats which 
they attribute to nameless men of post-exile times. They 
turn over all the great things of the Bible to people that 
nobody ever heard of, indeed Dillmann, a chief of their 
own tribe, is compelled to admit that the theory of post¬ 
exile origin of this ordinance is “ absolutely incredible.” 


388 LEVITICUS [xvi 

9. What the object of the whole service on the Day of 
Atonement ? 

Ans.—Atonement, based on vicarious expiation for 
all sins, the sins of Aaron and his house, the sins of the 
sanctuary itself, all the sins of all the people, whether the 
sins of ignorance or knowledge, and (2) redemption 
from Satan’s power. 

10. What the time allotted for the observance of this 
day? 

Ans.—Once a year and on the tenth day of the seventh 
month of the year. 

11. Regardless of the day’s position in the week, how 
must it be classified? That is, whether it be Monday, 
Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday or 
Sunday; how must it be classed? 

Ans.—The tenth day of the month must be classed as 
the Sabbath of sabbaths, a high sabbath, in which the 
people must do no work. 

12. What distinguishes it from all Jewish festivals? 

Ans.—The festivals were all joyous, but on this day 

the people must fast and afflict their souls. It must be 
a day of broken hearts and penitence or they must be cut 
off from the people. You don’t find that in connection 
with any other ordinance in the Old Testament. 

13. How in this regard does the New Testament cor¬ 
respond ? 

Ans.—An impenitent soul cannot take hold of Christ’s 
atonement. “ Repent, repent; except ye repent ye 
perish.” 

14. How else is the day’s service distinguished from 
all others? 

Ans.—(1) It was the only day in the year when the 
Most Holy Place could be entered. (2) One man only 
could enter it that day, the high priest. (3) Before he 


389 


xviJ GREAT DAY OF ATONEMENT 

could enter it, he must be divested of all his garb of 
glory used on the other days of service, and be clad in 
simple, spotless white as the commonest Levite. (4) No 
other priest or Levite could assist in the service of this 
day, the high priest alone must officiate throughout.. 

15. What the New Testament correspondence to this? 

Ans.—Now, I won’t attempt to give it all, but I will 

give enough for you to think of : (1) As here once for 
the year, there once for all the sacrifice dies and the 
atonement is made. (2) As here once a year the high 
priest laid aside his garb of glory, so Jesus once for all 
laid aside His glory that He might in His humiliation 
expiate and atone for sins. And as the high priest as¬ 
sumed his garb of glory when atonement was made, so 
Jesus, after atonement, was glorified with the glory 
which He had with the Father before the world was. (3) 
As the high priest alone officiated, so of the people there 
was none with Jesus in sacrifice and atonement. When 
He died, no angel to support Him and not even the 
presence of God to cheer Him. You might go on and 
add a great many other correspondences; as, here the 
high priest lifts his marvellous triple-coloured veil in 
order to approach the mercy-seat in the Most Holy Place, 
so Jesus through the veil, that is to say His flesh, laid 
aside His flesh in order to approach the true mercy-seat in 
heaven and there sprinkle His own blood on the mercy- 
seat. 

16. Where is there no New Testament correspondence? 

Ans.—Aaron, the typical high priest, had to offer the 

sacrifice for himself and his house and so qualify him¬ 
self to be the mediator for the people, but as Jesus knew 
no sin and there was no guile in Him, He did not have to 
make an offering for Himself. 

17. Apart from the sacrifice that the high priest offered 


390 


LEVITICUS 


[xvi 

for himself as preparatory to undertaking the work of 
the Day of Atonement, what are the sacrifices for expia¬ 
tion and atonement, and explain? 

Ans.—Two goats both as sin-offerings, both for the 
sins of the people confessed on their heads; both are pre¬ 
sented before the Lord. 

18. Why two? 

Ans.—It takes two ideally considered as one to repre¬ 
sent the two ideas of redemption: (i) Redemption toward 
God; (2) Redemption from Satan. 

19. How were they selected for their separate parts? 

Ans.—Lots were cast determining one for Jehovah and 

the other for Azazel. 

20. Describe the disposition of the goat for the Lord. 

Ans.—The goat for the Lord was sacrificed for a sin- 

offering and the blood was carried into the Holy of 
Holies and sprinkled on the mercy-seat. This is the only 
time in the year that this was done. It was carried hot, 
fresh, smoking, past the veil into the Most Holy Place 
and sprinkled on the mercy-seat. In all the ordinary 
sacrifices, the high priest did not enter the Most Holy 
Place. He stood before it, but only passed inside one 
time in a year. The body of that goat was then carried 
outside of the camp and burned, thus expiating sin God- 
ward, thus satisfying the divine law, thus placating God’s 
wrath against sin and thus reconciling God to man. 

21. What does that part teach? 

Ans.—(1) It teaches the infinite demerit of sin. (2) 
It teaches the absolute necessity of satisfying divine jus¬ 
tice against sin in order to the salvation of the sinner. 
(3) It teaches that mercy cannot prevail at the expense 
of justice. 

22. Describe the disposition of the other goat. 

Ans.—Now your record says very plainly that Aaron 


391 


xviJ GREAT DAY OF ATONEMENT 

took the other goat and confessed on that goat also the 
sins of the people, and then he sent that goat to Azazel 
away out in the wilderness, by a safe person. He was to 
be turned over to Azazel in the wilderness, and that per¬ 
son then returned. 

23. What the interpretation of the goat for Aza¬ 
zel? 

Ans.—There are only two theories worth considering; 
there are some others but they are so obviously untenable 
that they are not worth considering. (1) There is one 
brought out by the King James version that you find in 
a great many commentaries, and that is, that Azazel is to 
be considered abstractly and meaning “ removal.” 
Hence, the first goat would be the goat for expiating sin, 
and the second goat would be the goat to symbolically 
show the removal of sin which had been expiated. In 
other words, the first goat was to express the means of 
expiation, and the second was to express the effect of the 
expiation; or, to apply it to Christ, that Christ’s dying 
expiates sin; Christ’s living after His resurrection re¬ 
moves sin as embodied in such scriptures as these, “ As 
far as the east is from the west he has removed our sins 
from us.” Now these thoughts are all Scriptural and very 
comforting, but whether that is the interpretation of this 
particular question is the point. 

24. What is the objection to this view? 

Ans.— (1) The first objection to this theory is that 
“ Azazel ” is a proper name as much as “ Jehovah ” is a 
proper name and not an abstract noun. (2) That “ Aza¬ 
zel ” is put there over against “ Jehovah ” and contra-dis¬ 
tinguished from Jehovah. One goat for Jehovah and the 
other for Azazel, and a man must strain the meaning of 
the words to give Azazel here the idea of an abstract 
noun. (3) That this theory leaves out one great feature 


392 


LEVITICUS 


[xvi 

of redemption accomplished by atonement, and takes the 
bottom from under some of the most impressive of the 
prophecies, and of the New Testament teachings. 

25. What, then, in the estimation of the author is the 
true theory? 

Ans.—I remember a committee was staggered when I 
offered to present the true theory of Azazel in a sermon 
before the Southern Baptist Convention, and a critic ad¬ 
vised me to leave Azazel out of the sermon. I said, “ I 
will put him in and explain it and make the people be¬ 
lieve it.” What, then, is the true theory? That on this 
Day of Atonement there is redemption Godward in the 
goat that died for sin, and that that redemption based on 
expiation of sin makes possible redemption from the 
power of the devil. But the devil’s only hold is that men 
are sinners. Now you expiate their sins, then Satan’s 
power fails, and his authority is death, and death is the 
wages of sin; and the strength of sin is the law. But in 
the expiation of sin the penalty of the law, death, is re¬ 
moved, then the devil’s authority over death for the one 
expiated passes away. 

26. What are the Scriptural supports of this theory? 

Ans.—See the author’s sermon on “ Three Hours of 

Darkness.” That carries through the entire Bible the 
power of Satan, and shows how in the Day of Atonement 
the power of Satan was broken. I can give you this con¬ 
ception of the thought: That first goat died, but he 
died unto the Lord for the expiation of the sins of the 
world, a very honourable position for a goat. You re¬ 
member in one of .Esop’s Fables a wolf approaches a 
sheep and asked if it would not be eaten by the wolves, for 
it would be offered as a sacrifice on the altar of the gods 
anyway. To the wolf the sheep replied, “ It is more 
honourable to die on the altar of the gods than to go down 


393 


xviJ GREAT DAY OF ATONEMENT 

a wolf’s throat.” So that first goat, though he dies, had 
a glorious object in view. Now, look at this living goat. 
In the first place, he is burdened with all the sins of the 
people, and he carries that burden himself away from 
the flock. He had to go into the wilderness to meet 
Azazel, who is the devil. He goes out there carrying 
these sins, but not sins unforgiven, they are sins forgiven; 
their forgiveness has just been achieved by the death of 
the other goat, and therefore he can meet the devil. If I 
were an artist, I would paint that flight in the wilderness; 
that brave little goat and Azazel in the form of a serpent, 
as they fight it out to the death and the serpent bites the 
heel of the goat, but the goat crushes out the life of the 
serpent with his hoof. Hear its cries, “ Who shall de¬ 
liver me from the terrible one?” Hence in Psalms we 
have the prayer that Christ offered on the cross. He 
prays for two things, for the sins of the world are on 
Him. He says, “ O save me from the sword.” And the 
reply is given in Zechariah: “ Awake, O sword, and 

smite the shepherd.” Then He complained not only of 
the sword but of the roaring lion, and He prays, “ Save 
me from the lion,” and in that three hours of darkness, 
which was supernatural and which was “ Devil Dark¬ 
ness,” Christ was alone, and met it as that little goat 
met Azazel in the wilderness. He bruised the serpent’s 
head because He carried with Him the sins forgiven, 
in the goat that died unto God. I said the two goats 
were ideally one. In giving object lessons, it takes two 
to present the complete thought just like it takes two or 
more parables to represent the Kingdom of Heaven. But 
in the New Testament the antitype, the person is the 
same; Christ is the sacrifice for sin represented by the 
goat that died unto God; Christ is the living goat that 
meets Satan in his realm, and triumphs over him; so 


39 4 


LEVITICUS 


[xvi 

that the great object in the sixteenth chapter of Leviticus 
is to show that atonement is based on expiation of all 
sins and redemption is from the power of Satan, the 
usurper, that held men captive because of sin. 

27. What are the objections to this view and the reply 
thereto ? 

Ans.—(1) That it sends the goat off to be sacrificed 
to demons. What is the reply to that part of the objec¬ 
tion? That it is not so. That goat was not sent off to 
be sacrificed, but to whip in the fight and not die through 
the power of Satan. In the very next chapter you will 
find there is an express law against offering sacrifices to 
demons. (2) The second objection is that Azazel is not 
found elsewhere in the Bible. Neither are a great many 
of the names of Satan elsewhere mentioned than in a 
single passage. He had a great variety of names and 
each name represented a certain thought. For instance, 
as the adversary of God and man he is called Satan. 
That means an adversary; as a slanderer of God and an 
accuser of men he is called Devil and means slanderer; 
as the chief of demons he is called Beelzebub; as a wily, 
slimy, sly tempter he is called the serpent, the Old Drag¬ 
on; as the usurping king holding the world under his 
dominion while the world is covered with sin, he is Aza¬ 
zel. The Jewish tradition almost uniformly construes 
Azazel in the sixteenth chapter of Leviticus to mean the 
devil, and you will find in their rabbinical writings this 
very name Azazel. 

28. When must the high priest carry the blood of the 
sacrifice beyond the veil into the Most Holy Place and 
sprinkle it on the mercy-seat to make atonement? 

Ans.—On the same day that the sacrifice is slain, and 
while the blood is yet hot and has not had time to coag¬ 
ulate, or thicken. 


xvi] GREAT DAY OF ATONEMENT 395 

29. What is the New Testament significance of this 
fact? 

Ans.—It shows us where Christ’s spirit went and 
what His spirit did between His death and His resur¬ 
rection. Jesus died saying, “ Father, into thy hands I 
commend my spirit,” and the spirit of Jesus in the 
exercise of the functions of atonement, immediately on 
its dissolution from His body, went into the heaven of 
heavens, and there presented in the Most Holy Place in 
heaven His expiating blood and with it made atonement 
for the sins of the people. The importance of this truth 
cannot be over-estimated. For instance, when you come 
to study that remarkable passage in the letter of Peter 
where it is said that Christ by His spirit went and 
preached to the spirits in prison, a great many com¬ 
mentators hold that on the death of His body, Christ’s 
spirit went to hell and there preached to lost souls that 
perished in the flood, preached the gospel of regeneration. 
The whole doctrine of such interpretation is utterly at 
war with the uniform teachings of what the high priest 
does on the Day of Atonement; that He must go to heaven 
and not to hell, and why He must go there, and what He 
must do. In the next case it contradicts the teaching that 
probation ends with death; that there is no such thing 
as carrying the gospel to those who died impenitent. 

If you do not get the true conception of this Day of 
Atonement, you miss the centre wheel upon which the 
idea of interpretation of Mosaic legislation revolves. If 
you do not get the true conception of that, it takes the 
bottom from under all the evangelical meaning of the 
deepest, most profound writings and teachings of Jesus 
Christ and His apostles; and particularly if you do not 
understand the Day of Atonement in the sixteenth chapter 
of Leviticus, do not ever try to understand the letter to 


396 


LEVITICUS 


[xvi 

the Hebrews. Now you are at liberty to adopt for your 
private opinion that first theory of Azazel if you want to. 
Some good people do, but I do know that all the sound, 
modern interpreters, while they seem not to have gone as 
far with the thought as I have, say that Azazel means the 
devil, and that the goat was to meet the devil in the 
wilderness. And I am quite sure that it comes in more 
harmoniously than any other explanation of this part of 
the Word of God. Here is an invaluable recipe for know¬ 
ing when you have gotten the right interpretation. You 
can stick it in anywhere, in the back of the book or in the 
front of the book. If you stick a false brick in the middle 
of the building, the whole building will topple over. 
You may know you have the right interpretation when 
it articulates with the whole system of the divine truth 
without ever making a jar. If a man shall come up with 
a wagon load of bones and the man takes those bones and 
begins to articulate them and he puts a hand where one 
of the feet ought to be, and he puts a rib over the 
shoulder, there is a skeleton but you don’t get any sym¬ 
metry in your skeleton. You may know you have put 
some bones in the wrong place. This is a good rule for 
interpretation. 


VI 


THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN CLEAN 
AND UNCLEAN 

Leviticus XI—XV 

\ 

T HE scope of this chapter will be the eleventh, 
twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth chap¬ 
ters of Leviticus. 

The minds of commentators, Bible students and people 
generally have been very much perplexed to account for 
this feature of the Levitical law. In other words, that 
only certain animals must be used for food, and then, 
uncleanness coming from three other directions, one of 
which is exceedingly delicate; that, you will have to read 
about and not have the discussion of it. First, the sexual 
uncleanness of man or woman; and second, the touching 
of dead bodies, whether they are clean or unclean; and 
third, leprosy. And when you have taken those three, 
you have taken all except what is based on the distinction 
between the clean and the unclean animals. This ap¬ 
plies in two directions, viz.: as to use in sacrifices and 
more largely as to use in eating. This Levitical distinc¬ 
tion between the clean and the unclean and remedies for 
removing uncleanness have perplexed the minds of more 
Bible students, perhaps, then any other one thing. And 
their difficulty is, to account for the principle which de¬ 
termines such legislation, and various opinions have been 
entertained as to the principle which accounts for this 

397 


398 


LEVITICUS 


[xi-xv 

Levitical legislation. I am quite sure that no man could 
rationally account for the principles that were in the 
Divine Mind as to these distinctions apart from what 
the Divine Mind has said. He may attempt philosophic¬ 
ally to account for the state which depended only upon 
the law, but that does not account for the reason or 
principle underlying it. And there is always a reason 
for every law. Whether that reason is assigned or not, 
there is a reason. My own mind is pretty well settled on 
the subject, though I have tried hard enough to confuse 
it by reading the literature of various men that have 
tried to account for it in various ways. 

There are certain antecedent facts that are necessary 
to a settlement of the question, and the first fact is that 
as God made man before he was a sinner he was a vege¬ 
tarian. I mean to say that he was permitted to eat only 
fruits, cereals and salads and things of that kind. This 
is the first fact. The second significant fact on the eating 
question is found in the beginning of the ninth chapter 
of Genesis. When Noah came out of the ark, this lan¬ 
guage is used: “ And God blessed Noah and his sons, 
and said unto them, Be fruitful and multiply, and re¬ 
plenish the earth.” You see this is an entirely new race 
commission. The first race commission begins with 
Adam. Now the race starts anew with an entirely new 
head. “ And the fear of you and the dread of you 
shall be upon every beast of the earth . . . ” Now 

comes the clause, “ Every moving thing that liveth shall 
be food for you; as the green herb have I given you all.” 
Now, the reference there, “ as I have given you the 
green herb,” refers to the first law on the subject, the 
law of Eden. I quote: “ And God said, Behold I 

have given you every herb yielding seed, which is upon 
the face of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the 


CLEAN AND UNCLEAN 


399 


xi-xv] 

fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for food ” 
(Genesis i, 29). 

Now, that is the original commission about what man 
must eat, but in this more enlarged commission given 
to the race through Noah in the ninth chapter before 
there were any Jews, Noah and his family standing for 
the race, God says, “ As I gave you the green herb for 
food so now I give you every living thing that moveth.” 
In no discussion that I have ever seen are the facts 
brought out that I am giving you now. So you see the 
race is spoken of, Noah being the head of the race; there 
is no legislation against what you shall eat, either vege¬ 
table or animal food, no clean or unclean animals. 

Now, the third fact, and I am discussing only the eat¬ 
ing now, is that when God gave to Peter the key to the 
Kingdom of Heaven that opened the door to the Gentiles, 
as recorded in the tenth chapter of Acts, he let down a 
great ark or white sheet from heaven and in that ark 
were all the animals, whether brutes, that is, beasts, or 
birds, or creeping things; and he says, “ Rise, Peter; 
kill and eat.” Peter says, “ Not sc, Lord; I have never 
been accustomed to eat anything unclean.” And God 
says, “ What I have cleansed call thou not common.” 
The import of all which is, that whatever legislation was 
made by Moses with reference to distinction of meats in 
eating, stops with the Jews; and hence the apostle Paul 
elaborately argues his liberty to eat anything if it is 
received with thankfulness. So that it is a fact that in 
the New Testament the Levitical law as to the distinc¬ 
tion between clean and unclean animals is abrogated. 

Now, notice the bearing of this fact on the New Testa¬ 
ment, i.e., the principle that led to the legislation. When 
you come to the New Testament times and the Kingdom 
of God is taken from the Jews and given to the Gentiles, 


400 


LEVITICUS 


[xi-xv 

again there is no limitation. These facts force us to look 
for a reason in the Divine Mind that applied to this 
people, that is, the Jews as a people, in order to get at the 
distinction. Now I venture to say that you never get 
beyond the reach of these facts. 

The next thing is the distinction between clean and un¬ 
clean, not as to eating, but as to sacrifice. When did 
that originate? It did not originate with Noah, as far as 
sacrifices are concerned, for God commissioned Noah to 
take into the ark with him one pair of unclean animals 
and birds and seven pairs of clean animals and birds, as 
if Noah understood it, and Noah did understand it. And 
so when Noah came out of the ark, he took of the ani¬ 
mals and offered sacrifice to God; so this question is 
forced upon us: Where did the distinction between the 
clean and unclean animals for sacrifice originate? Not 
with Adam, not with Noah. Now I will give you the 
origin. It is equal to a plain statement. It originated 
as soon as man sinned; when he was expelled from the 
garden and the symbolical, or typical, method of ap¬ 
proach to God was appointed, We know this to be true. 
In the fourth chapter of Genesis, when one of Adam’s 
sons brought the clean beast from the flock and God re¬ 
ceived it, and the other offered simply the produce from 
his farm, his was rejected; so that I offer to you as the 
conviction of my mind that the distinction between clean 
and unclean animals for sacrifice originated when man 
sinned. Now, when an issue stands perfectly clear in my 
own mind, I am on pretty sure ground and my conviction 
is very clear so far as clean and unclean animals are con¬ 
cerned, that it originated when man sinned, by the ap¬ 
pointment of God and would necessarily cease when the 
Antitype came. So that we find God’s own distinction in 
animals for sacrifice going back to the sin of men, further 


CLEAN AND UNCLEAN 


401 


xi-xv] 

back than we carry the distinction of eating. Now, these 
facts will help us to get at the origin of the distinction 
between the clean and the unclean in the Divine Mind 
establishing this regulation. So I point out, first, that 
the distinction between clean and unclean animals both 
as to sacrifice and eating was to symbolize certain great 
spiritual truths and when the symbol was fulfilled, the 
obligation to continue would then cease. That is Prin¬ 
ciple One. 

Principle Two is for hygienic reasons, sanitary rea¬ 
sons. You know what “ hygienic ” means. You have 
studied medicine enough to know that. Sanitary rea¬ 
sons had something to do with it but modern scientists 
claim that it had everything to do with this distinction 
between the unclean and the clean animals. Now it is a 
sad truth that they consider only one principle and that is 
the sanitary reason, claiming that, as far as eating is 
concerned, it is the only one worth discussing. I admit 
the sanitary reason, but I do not give it the prominence 
that they do, since the commission to Noah did not in¬ 
clude it as a race commission. Therefore, the sanitary 
reason for the whole race does not explain it. It is wise 
to use those foods, the use of which is the least danger¬ 
ous to human health. God knew that this law would last 
only until the Messiah came and that it applied to the 
Jews, and that the Jews would simply be around the 
Mediterranean Sea, in a tropical country, and if I were 
living in that country now, I wouldn’t eat swine 
meat, for sanitary reasons. In the tropics it is not best to 
eat hog meat, and this law proscribes some food that 
can’t be eaten. Whether in the tropics or out of it, it is 
not best to eat blood. Statistics have been carefully 
gathered, that to me are intensely significant. You take 
the Jews living now in any country of the world, and 


402 


LEVITICUS 


[xi-xv 

(where they follow the regimen of diet prescribed in the 
book of Leviticus, these Jews average a longer life than 
other people, better health than other people and less 
liable to contagious diseases than other people. Read 
an account of an epidemic sweeping clear over the coun¬ 
try and it is astonishing how very few Jews have it. 
Now, that fact shows that the food we eat has a great 
deal to do with the health of the body. Look at those 
people in the camp life in the wilderness, in the blazing 
hot country, and for sanitary reasons, these Levitical 
reasons, they were forbidden to eat certain things. I 
mention that as the second principle. 

Now the third principle. It was the purpose of God 
to isolate Israel from all the nations of the earth; and 
in order to isolate Israel, His worship was to be sepa¬ 
rated from that of other people. For if they came to the 
table with the Gentiles, then intermarriage is permitted, 
and with intermarriage comes the idolatry of the heathen. 
The history, as you will see when you go to study 
Samuel, Kings and Chronicles, shows the introduction of 
idolatry to come with the association of the Jews with 
the heathen. A Jewish king with a heathen wife came 
near blotting religion from the world, and in it all 
Elijah stood alone with the exception of 7,000 people that 
had not bowed their knees to Baal. But he thought he 
was alone in the world and asked God to take him out 
of the world. So these people must be kept separate 
from the other people, there must be things that separate 
them; things that would not permit that degree of inti¬ 
mate association that permits marriage. So these things 
were given to make a line of demarcation between the 
Jews and the Gentiles. But when the Jewish policy 
had served its purpose, then the same God that drew that 
line tore it down and blotted out the distinction between 


CLEAN AND UNCLEAN 


403 


xi-xv] 

the clean and the unclean. Those are the three reasons 
that are satisfactory to my mind, and while I might cite 
fifty others, advocated by commentators, none of them 
seems to be of any force but these three. Now note 
carefully: First, the distinction was made in order to 
symbolize certain great spiritual truths that would be 
brought out; second, hygienic or sanitary reasons led to 
this distinction, and third, this legislation was to isolate 
Israel and tend to keep it as a separate and particular 
people. 

I come now to another feature of the case, viz.: the 
touching of dead bodies. If one was defiled, there was 
a ritual prescribed by which he could become clean, cere¬ 
monially, before God. It is easy to see in that case the 
spiritual truth that is embodied in that symbolism. Death 
is the wages of sin, and the body without the spirit is 
dead. Now then, in order to make these people realize 
the necessity of holiness, they must keep apart from the 
dead. “ Let the dead bury their dead.” And if propriety 
would admit of the discussion of the sexual feature of it, 
I could make that explanation perfectly satisfactory to 
you also. 

Now we come to the case of leprosy. Why was lep¬ 
rosy and no other form of sickness selected? The com¬ 
mentaries discuss much whether the leprosy of Leviticus 
is the leprosy of modern times as we understand it. I 
say to you that it is. I have not time to prove it, but you 
may just take my assurance that when Leviticus says 
leprosy it means leprosy in its most loathsome form. 
Why, now, was leprosy put along beside the bodies of 
dead men? Simply because one declared to be leprous 
was as one dead. It was a living death. As it progressed 
and disfigured the body, it would eat away the nose and 
the different parts of the body. In other words, the soul 


404 


LEVITICUS 


[xi-xv 

was confined in the charnel house of corruption. He 
must be segregated, he must hide himself, must not allow 
other people to come near him. The law commanded 
him to cover his upper lip, and when he saw any one 
coming toward him he must cry out, “ Unclean, un¬ 
clean, unclean! ” Therefore we find leprosy selected 
both in the Old and the New Testament as expressive 
of sin, and the healing of leprosy as the exercise of the 
power of God. Medicine cannot cure leprosy when it 
gets to a certain stage. A great many things com¬ 
mence like leprosy, and such cases had to be tested, 
therefore some of these regulations. A man is segre¬ 
gated and the high priest examines him and keeps him 
segregated until it is known not to be leprosy. Here are 
the symptoms: First, if the skin turns perfectly white, 
this is the first step; second, there appear growing out 
of that spot hairs that are white; that man is pronounced 
a leper, and then that last fearful sloughing off, eating 
form comes. Sometimes people would have this white 
spot and the white hair appearing in this spot and not 
have leprosy. It was because it did not develop a case in 
full, but the high priest was to count them lepers until 
it was shown not to be leprosy. Lepers regarded leprosy 
as a streke from God, and indeed that is the etymological 
meaning of the word. The Hebrew word means a stroke, 
that is, stroke from God. When the application was 
made to the king of Israel to heal Naaman, who was a 
leper, he says, “ They seek occasion against me; am I 
God, that I can make alive? ” He meant that it required 
supernatural power, divine power, to heal a leper. Some 
of the most noted sermons that have ever been preached 
have been sermons on leprosy as a type of sin. 

Now we come to consider the distinction, not as to the 
reason of its appointment, but what the distinction itself 


CLEAN AND UNCLEAN 


405 


xi-xv] 

was between the clean and the unclean, and that is easy 
to tell. Of the beasts, there must be two things to 
make it a clean beast, and it did not merely apply to 
sacrifices. I will show you the limitation directly. No 
beast could be offered as sacrifice or be eaten as food, 
unless it possessed two characteristics, viz.: a cloven hoof 
and the chewing of the cud. Now, the camel’s hoof is 
not cloven but it chews the cud; the sheep’s hoof is cloven 
and it does chew the cud; the hog’s hoof is cloven but it 
does not chew the cud. A number of wild animals are 
good for food because they divide the hoof and chew the 
cud, but only domestic animals that divide the hoof and 
chew the cud could be used as sacrifice. The others 
were unclean, but any animal, domestic or otherwise, that 
chewed the cud and divided the hoof could be eaten, for 
instance, the antelope, the deer, and all other animals of 
that kind. Now this is the distinction of beasts. 

Now we come to the birds and there the distinction is 
expressed in classes. Certain birds are mentioned, for 
instance, the dove, the pigeon. They could be used as 
sacrifice. They had the characteristic generally at¬ 
tributed to them, of innocence. They were not birds of 
prey. Certain others are specified. All carnivorous 
birds were excluded, and some birds eat bad flesh, as 
you know, and that applied to the beasts. There were 
graminivorous beasts; that means “ grass-eating ” beasts. 
They did not have tusks. They had molars, or grinders. 
The graminivorous beast perhaps would be clean, but 
none could be clean that was not a grass-eating beast. 
The eagle, the vulture, the owl, the bat, the stork, the 
heron and the crane are mentioned by name as not clean. 
The goose, the duck, the chicken, and all the variety of 
quail could be eaten, but only certain ones could be used 
as sacrifice. 



406 


LEVITICUS 


[xi-xv 

Now we come to another class, and here is what the 
Hebrew, literally translated, says about a certain class of 
things that were clean: First, he must be winged, and 
second, he must have four legs beside the hind legs used 
for hopping and jumping; as locusts, crickets, etc. Many 
people eat them. John the Baptist was a “ bug-eater,” 
and in some countries the locust is a general article of 
food. Now think of that fellow. First, he must be able 
to fly; he must be able to walk on all-fours; he must have 
wings to fly, and his hind legs must be hopping legs. 
There is, of course, in this country, a great deal of preju¬ 
dice against eating grasshoppers, but I am sure that if 
you were over in those countries and did not know what 
they were, you would eat them. They are dried in the 
sun and then ground up into flour and baked into a kind 
of cake. So you would not know what it was. I confess 
I don’t want any myself. 

Now, have you got that perfectly clear? The animal, 
in order to be eaten, must divide the hoof and chew the 
cud, and in order to be used as a sacrifice, must not only 
do that but it must be domestic; as, the cow, the sheep, 
the goat. The birds are specified by classes and must 
not be carnivorous birds. The grasshopper class must 
have four legs, two hoppers, and be able to fly. Now, 
there is one more class and that is the fishes. Two 
characteristics the fish must have in order to be Levit- 
ically fit to eat. It must have fins and it must have scales 
—fins and scales both. The catfish wouldn’t do. It has 
no scales; but there are others that would not do; as, the 
oyster. There people didn’t eat many oysters and we 
leave them out in the hot months. Now suppose it was 
hot all the time, as it is there; we would eat very few 
oysters. The rule will not apply to fishes as to birds. 
The fishes that have fins and scales are carnivorous; for 



xi-xv] CLEAN AND UNCLEAN 407 

instance, take a big trout. He eats the smaller fish and is 
carnivorous and voracious. There are four distinctions 
in fact, and I have discussed the principles. 

Now the method of removing uncleanness, and the 
details are elaborate. I recommend again the volume on 
Leviticus in the “ Expositor’s Bible,” as one of the best 
expositions of the book I ever read, by Kellogg. He is 
not poisoned by higher criticism, as most of these books 
are. When I go over a book, I am sure to tell you what 
books to use. The “ Expositor’s ” and the “ Cambridge ” 
Bibles are widely used; while some parts of them you 
cannot rely on, you can rely on the Leviticus volume of 
the “ Expositor’s Bible.” Dr. Wilkinson, of Chicago, 
came down to Texas to deliver a series of lectures. One 
of his subjects was “ The Book of Leviticus ” and all his 
lectures were on the introduction to the book. He came 
to me and said, “ What have you on Leviticus that is 
any account?” I said, “Take Kellogg, of the Exposi¬ 
tor’s Bible.” He says, “ It is in mighty bad company.” 
But when he brought the book back, he said, “ I thank 
you that you called my attention to that book. I had such 
a dislike for the Expositor’s Bible that I never thought 
to look in there for anything good, but it is superb.” 

Now, I will tell you of another that will bring out the 
spiritual, and that is Mackintosh. He is spiritual, though 
a pre-millennialist. They do stand four-square for the 
truth and I have always loved that kind of a man. If 
they stand square and do not yield to the higher critics; 
if they are spiritually minded and their teaching is 
spiritual, I am going to take them close to my heart and 
convert them as fast as I can. There are some mighty 
good people among them. Moody was one. A. C. 
Dixon, W. B. Riley and others are among them and they 
are mighty good people. 


408 LEVITICUS [xi-xv 

Our next lesson is on the seventeenth chapter of Leviti¬ 
cus and we take up the law of holiness in that. That 
refers to eating, which has been discussed in this study, 
but solely with reference to the distinction of meats. 
That law of holiness governs eating in other respects, 
viz.: the purity of life, the purity in the marriage rela¬ 
tion—all that comes under the head of this law. The 
most interesting part of Leviticus after we pass the six¬ 
teenth chapter is the times, the set times, in which Israel 
is to appear before God. It follows out this idea, viz.: 
that Leviticus is the development of that part of the law 
which is the altar, and shows the way of approach to 
God, through what one shall approach God, through 
whom he shall approach God, and then gives the inau¬ 
guration of the service after it has been established, the 
culmination of that service in regard to the clean and the 
unclean animals, and the times to come before God, i.e., 
the set times. To prepare you for that chapter I will 
state these times: First, the evening and the morning; 
second, the weekly sabbaths; third, the monthly or lunar 
sabbaths; fourth, the great annual sabbaths; fifth, the 
land-sabbath or the seventh-year sabbath; and sixth, the 
Jubilee sabbath, the seven times seven or fiftieth-year 
sabbath, the Jubilee. 


EXAMINATION QUESTIONS 

1. What puzzling question relative to the distinction between 
the clean and the unclean in eating and in sacrifice? 

2. What is the real difficulty with Bible students on this 
question ? 

3. What three divisions of uncleanness as relating to persons? 

4. What two classes, or divisions, as relating to animals? 

5. How, then, account for these principles? 

6. What antecedent facts necessary to a settlement of this 
question as it relates to eating? 

7. What the import of the revelation to Peter in Acts x? 

8. What, then, does Paul say on this question? 


xi-xv] CLEAN AND UNCLEAN 409 

9. What bearing has this principle on New Testament 
revelation ? 

10. What do these facts force us to look for? 

11. When did the distinction between the clean and unclean 
animals for sacrifice originate? 

12. Then, when would this distinction between the clean and 
unclean animals for sacrifice necessarily cease? 

13. According to these facts, what is Principle No. 1 as to the 
distinction between clean and unclean animals relating to both 
sacrifice and eating? 

14. What, then, is Principle No. 2? 

15. What is the contention of modern scientists on this and 
your reply? 

16. How did this principle apply to the Jews? 

17. What evidence of its influence on the Jewish life? 

18. What is Principle No. 3? 

19. What three things were essential to accomplish the isola¬ 
tion of Israel? 

20. When were these distinctions blotted out? 

21. Why did the touching of a dead body render one unclean? 

22. Why was leprosy and no other form of sickness selected? 

23. Why was leprosy selected in both Testaments as ex¬ 
pressive of sin? 

24. What are the symptoms of leprosy? 

25. How did lepers regard leprosy and why? 

26. What distinction between clean and unclean beasts as to 
eating ? 

27. What distinction as to sacrifice? 

28. What distinction as to birds? 

29. What is said of the grasshopper class? 

30. What distinguishes the clean from the unclean in fishes? 


VII 


THE LAW OF HOLINESS 

Leveticus XVII—XXII 

T HIS chapter covers the seventeenth to twenty- 
second chapters inclusive. The theme is the law 
of holiness. I will treat it catechetically. 
i. Where must animals for food be brought and slain, 
and why? 

Ans.—In such a camp as the Israelites’ camp, with 
3,000,000 of people, the question of food was a grave 
question. The law required that every bullock, every 
sheep, every beef, every goat, that was to be eaten, be 
brought to one place to be slain, and that one place was 
the gate, or the door, of the tabernacle, the outer court of 
the tabernacle; and the reason of the law was that the 
priest had to inspect and approve of the method of 
slaughtering animals, for both sanitary and spiritual rea¬ 
sons. The first part, the sanitary reason, is employed to¬ 
day in the city regulations concerning slaughter houses. 
The wisest precautions must be adopted with reference to 
cleanliness, to avoid the breeding of pests or pestilences. 
The second and most important reason was that the 
priest should see that the law concerning blood was ob¬ 
served. They were expressly forbidden to eat any animal 
food from which the blood had not been drained, and this 
applied to animals where they killed them in the wilder¬ 
ness, as deer and those animals used for food; they must 

410 


xvii-xxii] THE LAW OF HOLINESS 411 

draw the blood off; as soon as the animal was killed, the 
blood must be drawn. 

2. Give Old Testament and New Testament law pro¬ 
hibiting the eating of blood, and why is it now binding? 

Ans.—The Old Testament law commences with the 
law of Noah, when he represented the whole race. While 
they were given permission in that law to eat every mov¬ 
ing, living thing, immediately after (Genesis ix, 4) there 
is this express stipulation, viz.: that the blood must be 
drawn out of the body, or it could not be eaten. It was a 
sin to eat blood when the law applied to the whole world. 
Now when we come to the New Testament in the fif¬ 
teenth chapter of Acts, we have this law. In the great 
council that was held in Jerusalem, James in closing that 
council says in his speech: “Wherefore my judgment 
is that we trouble not them who from among the Gen¬ 
tiles are turned to God; but that we write unto them to 
abstain from what is strangled, and from blood.” Now 
in drawing up the decree later in the same chapter, you 
have this: “We lay upon you no greater burden than 
these necessary things, that ye abstain from blood, and 
from things strangled.” That is addressed to the Gen¬ 
tiles and says, “ Fornications, from blood and things 
strangled.” 

In the second chapter of Revelation, our Lord calls at¬ 
tention to this law, and states that one of the things that 
He has against one of the seven churches in Asia is that 
they violate that law. So my decision is that the reason 
for prohibiting the use of blood for food is not a mere 
Jewish regulation. We find it binding on the race be¬ 
fore there was a Jew, and we find it binding after the 
Kingdom of God was passed to the Gentiles. Two rea¬ 
sons are given, one is that the blood is the life; and 
another reason is that because it is the life, it is the blood 


412 


LEVITICUS 


[xvn-xxii 

with which expiation for sin is made. Outside of the 
regulation concerning eating, just described, and which 
is set forth in the seventeenth chapter, we now enlarge 
the law of holiness with a new question. 

3. What is incest? 

Ans.—That comes in the first part of the eighteenth 
chapter, and goes down to the eighteenth verse. In this 
we have a number of things that are classed as incest. 
I am not going to discuss that on account of the delicacy 
of the matter. I will say, in general terms, that any 
offence that violates the law concerning nearness of 
kindred, comes under the head of incest, no matter what 
it is. There are many cases of incest mentioned in the 
Bible. 

4. What is the purpose of this law prohibiting incest? 

Ans.—The purpose of the law is to enforce the sanc¬ 
tity of the family and its relation; and the common sense 
as well as the common interpretation of all denomina¬ 
tions regards that law as binding now, because it does 
not arise from any particular condition of the Jews, but 
arises from the nature of the family institution, and is 
just as applicable to one people as another people, and to 
one time as another time. There is nothing temporary 
in it. We have laws regulating this also : for instance, 
that a man should not marry his own sister, his own aunt, 
or his niece, anything that violates the law of kindred. 
Now incest in that chapter stops with verse 18. 

5. What law prevailed in England to prohibit a man’s 
marrying his wife’s sister, even after his wife was dead ? 

Ans.—I don’t know that the law is abrogated now, but 
I know it did prevail. If a man married into a large 
family, and the wife died, then he could not marry the 
sister of his wife. Is that law properly derivable from 
the 18th verse of the eighteenth chapter? I will quote 


413 


x vii-xxii ] THE LAW OF HOLINESS 

it. My judgment is that they misinterpret the Levitical 
law in embodying any of the law into the common law of 
England. A great many romances have been written on 
this subject. The 18th verse simply says this: “Thou 
shalt not take a wife to be a rival of her sister in 
her lifetime.” Now you see that does not forbid the 
marrying of the wife’s sister after the wife dies. Yet 
the English law prohibited it, and not only prohibited it, 
but counted it as not marriage. 

6. What is sodomy? 

Ans.—You can read that answer to yourself. That is 
a sin against the law of holiness, and is just as binding 
now as it ever was. That is, for a man to treat another 
man as if he were a woman, or a woman to treat another 
woman as if she were a man; that is sodomy. That was 
the sin that brought about the destruction of Sodom and 
Gomorrah, and it derives its name from Sodom. 

7. What is bestiality? 

Ans.—From beast we get bestiality, that is, a man 
treating a beast as if the beast were a woman, and a 
woman treating a beast as if it were a man. 

8. Have we in our statute books any laws against 
bestiality ? 

Ans.—We certainly have, and with a very sharp pen¬ 
alty. I have known of some convictions under that law, 
and it left a lasting shame upon the one who committed 
the offence, besides the punishment by the state. Now 
that ends everything relating to sodomy, incest and bes¬ 
tiality. 

The next question of the law of holiness is embodied in 
these words, upon which I ask a question: “ Thou shalt 
not cause thy seed to pass through the fire to Molech.” 

9. What is meant by causing the seed to pass through 
the fire to Molech? 


414 LEVITICUS [xvn-xxn 

Ans.—The answer is, the offering of one of your own 
children as a sacrifice to be burned with fire upon the 
altar of the heathen god, Molech. There is some differ¬ 
ence of opinion yet as to whether these children were 
burned alive or slain before they were burned. The 
Carthaginians practised this, and a great many heathen 
nations with which the Jews had to do practised this. 
You find a number of cases of it in the Bible. Now I 
will give you an old-time description of it. A man would 
be in great trouble about something, and he felt that an 
ordinary sacrifice would not remove the curse from him. 
He would vow to offer his own offspring as a burnt-offer¬ 
ing to the god, Molech, in order to appease that deity, 
and remove the curse from his house. A furnace, shaped 
something like a man, but a most hideous and monstrous 
man, was built representing Molech, built of iron; it had 
arms held out, a huge, gigantic image of Molech, and 
under that furnace was a place for the fire, and that 
would heat that iron image red-hot, and then they would 
take the naked babe, and place it in the red-hot arms of 
the idol; and in order to drown the sounds of its screams 
of agony, the priests would beat their tom-toms, or huge 
drums, and the parents, disregarding the screams of the 
child, would go away believing that they were absolved 
from the curse that had come upon them. 

io. What is the meaning and application of “ Thou 
shalt not build a city in the blood of thy first¬ 
born ” ? 

Ans.—That originated from the curse pronounced 
upon the men who should attempt to rebuild Jericho 
after it had been destroyed. The law was: “ Whoever 
shall rebuild that city shall lose his firstborn.” Then 
comes the great direction, “ Thou shalt not build the city 
in the blood of thy firstborn.” From that I once deduced 


415 


xvii-xxii] THE LAW OF HOLINESS 

a prohibition speech, in the case where the city demanded 
the retention of the liquor traffic to promote commercial 
interest. “ Thou shalt not build a city in the blood of 
thy firstborn/’ I quoted, saying, “ You seek to promote 
commercial prosperity through the liquor traffic. Maybe 
your son will be the first to perish, maybe your daughter 
will become the wife of a drunkard, and your grand¬ 
child inherit a drunkard’s habits, and you are building a 
city in the blood of your children.” 

ii. What is meant by enchantments, and why forbid¬ 
den? 

Ans.—The law says, “ Thou shalt not use any enchant¬ 
ments.” It means, thou shalt not have recourse to any 
forms of seeking information or avoiding trouble that 
bring relief from any source but God. When I was a 
little boy, I knew an old negro ninety years old who used 
enchantments. She would go out and gather herbs on 
the dark of the moon; she would catch a lizard or a snake, 
maybe get the eye of a gnu, and put them in a pot with 
the herbs and boil them, compounding the enchantment, 
and if she could mingle a few drops of that in the water 
people would drink, she would “ hoodoo ” them. Those 
of you who have read Shakespeare’s “ Macbeth ” remem¬ 
ber how the witch would take the eye of a mole, the toe of 
a frog, the blind worm’s sting, and boil them in order 
to concoct the enchantment. A great many negroes up 
to the present day carry a rabbit’s foot in their pockets, 
or hang a horseshoe over the door of a house newly built, 
to keep off enchantments. The simplest form of en¬ 
chantment is taking a cup of coffee before it is settled, 
and pour off the coffee and leave the grounds in the cup; 
then turning the cup over, the grounds left on the inside 
of the cup run down, and they forecast what is going to 
happen from the coffee grounds. 


416 LEVITICUS [xvii-xxii 

12. The next question is similar to this: What is meant 
by familiar spirits, and why forbidden ? 

Ans.—This beats the coffee grounds and the enchant¬ 
ments. It has retained its hold over the human mind with 
more persons, perhaps, than any other sin except fleshly 
sins. Lots of people in Texas now believe it. “ Having 
a familiar spirit ” (xix, 31) means this: a certain person 
is a medium; a medium has the power to call up certain 
spirits from the dead, and obtain from these spirits in¬ 
formation, and this information is sometimes conveyed by 
rapping on the table, one rap meaning “ yes,” two raps 
“ no ”; then spelling out, one rap A, two raps B, and 
getting information that way. It has always been a 
horrible sin; it is just as much a sin to-day as it ever was. 
And the main point of the sin is expressed by Isaiah the 
prophet. In referring to it, he says, “ Why seek ye to 
wizards, and chirp and mutter, and why should the living 
seek unto the dead? Seek unto me, saith the Lord.” 
The sin of it consists, then, in disregarding God’s revela¬ 
tion, and endeavouring to obtain from the spirits of the 
dead, or from demons, information that God either has 
not given or withholds. He gives all the information 
that we need in His book of Revelation. Sometimes this 
Spiritualism or spirit rapping, or spirit slate-writing, or 
whatever the form of it, sweeps the country like an epi¬ 
demic, and the most cultured people, some as a mere 
matter of curiosity or experiment, some for graver rea¬ 
sons, will go to this medium and endeavour to obtain 
from the spirits of the dead the messages of the dead, 
from the husband who has departed, or the child who has 
departed. Now you may put this down as settled that if 
ever you want to do anything for anybody, you must do 
it while you are living, and while that person is living, 
and if you wait till the person dies you cannot ameliorate 


417 


xvn-xxn] THE LAW OF HOLINESS 

his condition. If you wait until you die, the opportunity 
to help the other person in any way is gone forever. Our 
Lord in the sixteenth chapter of Luke settles that and 
many other questions. A rich man who entered hell 
wanted the soul of Lazarus to go back and carry the 
message to his brothers in the other world, and it was 
forbidden; the rich man wanted the soul of Lazarus to 
bring him, on the tip of his finger, a drop of water in hell, 
and it was forbidden. Between the spirits of the right¬ 
eous and the wicked after death a deep and impassable 
chasm yawns. One cannot pass to the other. Those are 
fundamental doctrines. You can count this as a settled 
thing that there is no clear case in the Bible where the 
soul of one who was dead was ever permitted to come 
back to this earth with a message of any kind. And there 
are only two cases that have ever been quoted; the most 
notable one is what seems to have taken place when Saul 
sought to get information from Samuel through the 
witch of Endor, and when we come to that case, I will 
expound it in such a way that you will see that it is no ex¬ 
ception. The other is that of Moses and Elijah on the 
Mount of Transfiguration. They appeared unto Christ, 
but they brought no message to any person on earth. On 
the contrary, the word to the apostles was: “ Hear ye 
him.” You cannot get anything from Moses and Elijah. 
That belongs to Christ. The message is: “ Revealed 

things belong to us and our children, but hidden things 
belong to God.” 

13. This question covers the twentieth chapter: What 
the respective penalties for these offences? 

Ans.—I am not going to answer that question for you. 
You have that twentieth chapter to read, and I want you 
to answer it as you see it. How many punishable by 
death, and how many by excommunication—that is, cut 


418 


LEVITICUS 


[xvii-xxii 

off from the people? Now we take them as we come to 
them: Incest, sodomy, bestiality, enchantments, seeking 
those that have familiar spirits; and from the twentieth 
chapter you must answer what the penalties are in each 
case, and in giving the penalties show how many of the 
death penalty, and how many of the penalty of being cut 
off from the people. 

14. This covers chapters xxi and xxii. These two 
chapters give the law of holiness as binding on the priest¬ 
hood. Now these chapters are added, giving the law to 
the priest, and the question is, What difference in the ap¬ 
plication to priests, that is, the law of incest, sodomy, and 
the law of enchantments, seeking this and that from 
familiar spirits? In other words, what difference do you 
find between the application of these laws to priests, and 
to the common people? 

Ans.—The difference is that the penalty is harder on 
the priest and the law more stringent. The law is more 
stringent for a preacher, if he commit a crime; while 
what he does is the same to him as it is to any other man, 
yet by virtue of his office the sin is greater. Because of 
his high rank, he has brought more shame upon the cause 
of God than if the offence had been committed by a com¬ 
mon person. That is the reason for it. Now there is 
in chapter xix a great variety of special statutes, all of 
them important, but it is like taking each one of them as 
a text. It would mean as many texts as there are verses, 
but I will ask on that nineteenth chapter two questions. 

15. Of what are the special statutes in the nineteenth 
chapter developments? 

Ans.—They are developments of the Ten Command¬ 
ments. 

16. State in your judgment the most striking of these 
statutes. 


xvii-xxii ] THE LAW OF HOLINESS 419 

Ans.—Read the nineteenth chapter, and you will see a 
great variety, and some of them will impress you more 
than others. I will leave this to you because I want to 
train your mind to decide some things for yourselves. 
For instance you will find this: “ Thou shalt rise up 

before the hoary head,” and you may just put it down 
that no man is a gentleman who does not respect an old 
man or an old woman. He simply isn’t a gentleman, in 
any consideration. I have seen boys in a street car hold 
a seat, with a tottering old grandmother standing up, 
holding to a strap. Now a Jew would be an outcast if he 
did such a thing, and he never does it among his own 
people. Not long ago, a distinguished Japanese brought 
his family to America, and travelled across the continent 
from New York to San Francisco. He had been here 
before and knew the difference, but his little boy and girl 
did not know, and they were perfectly horrified at the 
irreverence shown in America to parents and old people. 
It was a most astounding thing to them. I knew of a 
Jew who lost a trade of great value rather than wake up 
his old father, who was taking a nap and had the key to 
the desk in his pocket. He said, “ My father is old and 
his afternoon nap is precious. I will not disturb his 
afternoon nap in order to make a trade.” And to this 
day the Jews are ahead of the Americans in deference to 
the aged. And the Japanese are above us in that; far 
below us in many things, but ahead of us in that. 

17. What the formal introduction of this law of holi¬ 
ness that I have been discussing? 

Ans.—The formal introduction is found in the first 
five verses of the eighteenth chapter: “And Jehovah 
spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of 
Israel, and say unto them, I am Jehovah your God. 
After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, 


420 


LEVITICUS 


[XVH-XXII 

shall ye not do; and after the doings in the land of 
Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do; neither 
shall ye walk in their statutes, ye shall do my judgments 
and keep my ordinances, to walk therein; I am the Lord 
your God. Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my 
judgments; which if a man do, he shall live in them; I 
am Jehovah.” That is the formal introduction, that an* 
swers the question. 

18. What is the application to Israel at this time? 

Ans.—They had just come out of Egypt. They were 

just going into Canaan, and they were in covenant with 
Jehovah. The land they lived in was full of idolatry. 
The land they were just about to enter reeked with 
infamy, and the cry of its crimes went up to heaven. 
God said, “ Their cup of iniquity is almost full,” and 
when it was full He said that He would spew them out of 
His mouth. Now He wanted His people not to be like 
them, and He said, “ If you do as the Canaanites do, I 
will blot you out of the land.” And He did. 

19. What deductions from these laws? 

Ans.—While there are many deductions, I call your 
attention to two: (1) God holds the nation responsible 
just as He holds the individual, no matter what the form 
of government in that nation, an absolute or limited 
monarchy, aristocracy, or theocracy, or democracy. The 
government that violates the laws of God, that nation 
shall not go down to perdition as a whole, but its duration 
is limited, for Jehovah He is King of kings, and Lord of 
lords, and the government of the whole world is upon 
His shoulder, and no nation can long violate the laws of 
morality, truth and honesty, and survive. Upon the 
high walls of the city of ancient times was written: 
“ Therefore, saith the Lord, their days are numbered,” 
and that city, no matter how regal, no matter how high 


421 


xvn-xxn] THE LAW OF HOLINESS 

its walls, how great its brazen gates, how strong its 
fortifications, the “ Thus saith the Lord ” came upon it 
on account of the iniquities, crumbled its walls to dust 
and made the site of that city the habitation of beasts, 
animals and birds. As it was said of Babylon, “ the lion 
shall whelp in thy palace.” God governs the nations. It 
is a great theme, one of the greatest of all. Beecher 
one time preached a great sermon on the government of 
God, and a young man asked him how long he was pre¬ 
paring that sermon. He said, “ Forty years.” (2) Now 
the second deduction. “ As righteousness exalteth a na¬ 
tion, so sin is a reproach to any people.” It may be an 
English-speaking nation, it may be an Oriental nation, it 
may be an Arctic nation, no matter where the people are 
congregated into nations, righteousness exalteth that 
nation, and sin is a reproach to that people. 


VIII 


THE TIMES OF COMING BEFORE THE LORD 

Leviticus XXIII and XXV, urith Numbers 
XXVIII and XXIX 

O UR study is the twenty-third and twenty-fifth 
chapters of Leviticus, considered with Numbers 
twenty-eighth and twenty-ninth chapters. The 
general theme is, “ The Times of Coming Before the 
Lord.” 

i. What has already been considered concerning com¬ 
ing before the Lord? 

Ans.—We have considered the place to come; we have 
considered the sacrifice with which to come; we have con¬ 
sidered the priests through whom the approach is made 
to God; and now we are to consider the times in which 
God is to be approached, or the appointed times. 

2. How often every day? 

Ans.—Every morning and every evening, Numbers 
xxviii, 1-9. 

3. What is its name, and why so called? 

Ans.—The continual burnt-offering, because it is day 
by day, forever, or unto the end of the Jewish dispensa¬ 
tion ; hence it is called “ continual.” 

4. What constitutes the sabbatic cycle? 

Ans.—(1) The weekly sabbath; (2) The lunar, or 
monthly sabbath; (3) The annual sabbath—those sab¬ 
baths connected with the Day of Atonement, the feast of 

422 


xxm-xxv] COMING BEFORE THE LORD 423 

weeks, Pentecost, the Trumpets and Ingatherings, and 
quite a number of other annual sabbaths; (4) Then the 
land-sabbath, or every seventh year; (5) Then the Jubi¬ 
lee-year sabbath, or every fiftieth year. That is the sab¬ 
batic cycle. Every one is a sabbath of a certain period. 
When you talk of the monthly sabbath, remember that the 
Jews reckoned by lunar months, not calendar months as 
we do, and they had their own way of finishing out the 
year. The month of the Jew was four weeks—four times 
seven, or twenty-eight days. 

5. Give an account of the weekly sabbath for (1) the 
race, (2) the Jew, (3) the Christian; i.e., its origin and 
purpose. 

Ans.—(1) The sabbath for the race was ordained be¬ 
fore man sinned. You will find an account of it in the 
first chapter of Genesis (the real first chapter, though it 
commences the second chapter, that is, it ought to be a 
part of the first), and it commemorates God’s work of 
creation. (2) The Jewish sabbath was instituted on 
Sinai, an addition to the commemoration of the creation 
sabbath, and brought in the idea of a redemption, so 
called because of the deliverance from Egyptian bondage. 
(3) The Christian Sabbath is the first day of the week, 
and it commemorates, not the work of God, but the work 
of Christ in redemption. Each of these three sabbaths 
is commemorative. It not only looks back to some great 
event, but each one looks forward to some event. 

6. What says our Lord as to the purpose of the Sab¬ 
bath? 

Ans.—He says that the Sabbath was made for man, 
and not man for the Sabbath; that is, when you make 
man for the Sabbath, you are making “ the tail wag the 
dog.” The dog wasn’t made for the tail, the tail was 


424 


LEVITICUS 


[xxiii-xxv 

made for the dog. Now the Sabbath was made for man, 
as commemorating the creation, or deliverance, or Christ’s 
work of redemption. It was made for man, i.e., to serve 
some good purposes concerning man. 

7. What literature is specially commended concerning 
the weekly sabbath? 

Ans.—I commend the work of the great Baptist, 
George Dana Boardman, on the Ten Commandments. 
This he delivered before the University of Pennsylvania, 
and I don’t know anything in literature that is better. 
The other is the special literature in the three sermons 
preached by the author on the Sabbath, on the opening 
of the Waco Cotton Palace. They are the last three ser¬ 
mons in the first book of sermons. 

8. What is the New Testament proof of the abroga¬ 
tion of the Jewish sabbath? 

Ans.—You will find the proof in the letter to the Co- 
lossians, where it states that the whole cycle of Jewish 
sabbaths was nailed to the cross of Christ, and “ there¬ 
fore let no man judge you concerning the sabbath 
days.” 

9. Give an account of the lunar sabbaths, i.e., the 
monthly sabbaths. 

Ans.—As these are so easily found, I am going to 
leave it to you to find out. Those of you who are happy 
enough to have “ The Students’ Bible ” by Nave, with 
marginal notes and footnotes, will find it of incalculable 
value in this and any other work on the Bible. For in¬ 
stance, in the index it takes the new moon, and it refers 
you to all the scriptures bearing upon it, and a complete 
analysis is given. Now you will have very little trouble 
just to answer from the Bible itself that question. Now 
we come to the annual sabbath. 

10. Give an account of the Passover—when instituted, 


xxiii-xxv ] COMING BEFORE THE LORD 425 

why instituted, date, the great observances of it, type of 
what, and the New Testament ordinance analogous 
to it. 

Ans.—In the footnote on the 231st page of the Nave 
Bible you have all that answered without any trouble at 
all. Just take it and study it. You will need it, and in 
Hiscock’s “ Analysis of the Bible,” and a number of 
other Bibles that have helps to them, you will find valu¬ 
able help in this work. In general terms, the Passover 
was instituted in Egypt. There was first the Passover 
lamb, which was slain and its blood sprinkled upon the 
door, through which the firstborn of Israel were delivered. 
Now the Feast of the Passover, the one that commemo¬ 
rates this great deliverance, was established at the same 
time and place through Moses. The same place will 
give you the dates exactly. For instance, the Passover 
lamb was slain on the fourteenth day of the month 
Nisan. 

The feast of the unleavened bread followed that for 
one week. The Passover lamb is the type of our Lord 
Jesus Christ: '‘Christ, our Passover, is slain for us.” 
The great historical observances of it are these: (1) 
The first observance when it was instituted in Egypt; 
(2) Joshua’s observance of it when he reached the Holy 
Land; (3) Hezekiah’s great observance of it; (4) Jo- 
siah’s great observance of it; (5) The observance of it 
after the return from Babylonian captivity; (6) The 
observance of it by Christ and His apostles. 

Another part of the question is: What New Testa¬ 
ment ordinance is analogous to it? The Lord’s Supper. 
As that Passover lamb was slain, and the feast commem¬ 
orated it, so Christ is our Passover lamb, and in com¬ 
memoration of His death for sin, we have the Lord’s 
Supper. 


426 


LEVITICUS 


[xxiii-xxv 

Provision was made also for what is called the “ Little 
Passover.” If unavoidable circumstances prevented the 
Jews from observing the Feast of the Passover, then a 
month later there was what is called the “ Little Pass- 
over,” in which they could comply with the law. 

11. Give an account of the Feast of the Unleavened 
Bread; its relation to the Passover; its purpose; and 
the New Testament reference to it. 

Ans.—The relation of the Feast of the Unleavened 
Bread to the Passover is that it immediately follows it, 
and carries out its idea. In this feast, even the very 
houses must be purged from leaven, as Paul says, “ Let 
us purge out the old leaven of malice and wickedness, 
and eat our bread with sincerity and truth.” 

12. What days of this feast are holy convocations? 

Ans.—The first day and the seventh day. Both of 

them are constituted Sabbaths, and the people came to¬ 
gether; therefore they are called the convocations. You 
will find in Numbers in one of the two chapters I give 
you (xxviii and xxix) that there is a difference in what 
are called the feasts and the convocations. Exodus says 
that there are three great feasts, and in Numbers you 
will find six, yet it does not conflict with Exodus. The 
names are different; one of them means times, i.e., set 
times, and the other means feasts proper. The whole 
matter is elaborated in the twenty-eighth and twenty- 
ninth chapters of Numbers. 

13. Give an account of the Day of Atonement. 

Ans.—I have already answered it in a special chapter. 

14. Give an account of Pentecost; its origin, date, pur¬ 
pose, type of what, and spiritual meaning. 

Ans.—Count fifty days from the Sabbath after the 
Passover was slain, that is, seven times seven, and then 
the next day—that was the Pentecost. It is from the 


xxiii-xxv] COMING BEFORE THE LORD 427 

Greek number which means fifty, that is, the fiftieth day. 
The Jewish Pentecost was a type of the outpouring of 
the Spirit of God, as we find in Acts ii. 

15. Give an account of the Feast of Tabernacles, or 
Ingatherings, date, purpose and New Testament refer¬ 
ences. 

Ans.—Now I am putting more in these questions than 
in the answers, for it will be brought out in examination. 
You ought to learn this so that you will never forget 
it. 

16. The Feast of the Trumpets: give an account just 
as you do of the others. 

Ans.—You must form your own answer to that. 

17. In these annual feasts, how many days of holy 
convocation are there? 

Ans.—That you will find in Numbers xxviii and xxix. 

18. In those feasts are there any references to agricul¬ 
ture ? 

Ans.—There are some. Three of them, at least; one 
of them comes at the opening of the barley harvest, one 
at the wheat harvest, and one at the harvest of the oil, 
wine, and of fruits at different seasons of the year. 

19. Therefore, what do the radical critics affirm of all 
these feasts, and your reply to it? 

Ans.—They say that these Jewish feasts are no more 
than the feasts of other nations that are based upon na¬ 
ture, the different seasons of the year and hence of lunar 
origin; and that the historical account of their institu¬ 
tion is unreliable; and that they were really originated in 
the time of Ezekiel, during the Babylonian captivity. If 
you ask one of them to state any book of history, sacred 
or profane, that testifies to this allegation, they will tell 
you there is none. In other words, their conviction is 
supported by no historical evidence whatever. Their 


428 


LEVITICUS 


[xxm-xxv 

philosophy about these things is to try to account for 
everything in the book, without recourse to the super¬ 
natural. They deny all miracles, as they interfere with 
the affairs of nature, and of course, in accounting for 
these things, they apply to them what they call the theory 
of development or evolution, viz.: that the history had 
an evolution. You ask them for proof, and they tell you 
that from the books themselves they get these things, 
that is, they evolve it from their own consciousness. It is 
impossible to have any respect for them. No man who 
denies the supernatural has the right to try to expound the 
Bible. Now as proof: In three of the other feasts 
there is no reference to products, i.e., the year in differ¬ 
ent harvests, and the historical account given here can¬ 
not be explained by any reference to nature. Take the 
Passover, for instance, and there is nothing in the word, 
Passover, that nature explains. This book tells us that 
the Passover was commemorative of the deliverance of 
the Children of Israel from Egyptian bondage, and all 
their history from that time on points to the same thing. 
In the same way, there is nothing analogous in any his¬ 
torical feast; nothing that approximates the land-sabbath 
or the Jubilee sabbath, or the purpose for which these 
sabbaths were instituted. I used to be an infidel myself, 
and used to question all these things, and I always felt 
how lame a thing it was to try to prove it by some his¬ 
torical testimony. 

20. From what came our National Thanksgiving? 

Ans.—I am going to leave you to answer that 

without my telling you. I want you to do some study¬ 
ing. 

21. What woman, after eighteen years of labour, 
brought about the National Thanksgiving, which had been 
disused from the time of Washington? Who was the 


xxiii-xxv] COMING BEFORE THE LORD 429 

President whom she induced to issue a National Thanks¬ 
giving proclamation? 

Ans.—The states of New England had their annual 
Thanksgiving day, and the governor issued the procla¬ 
mation. When Washington was President, he issued a 
national Thanksgiving proclamation. I have a copy of 
it; no other President followed his example for many 
years. John Adams and Jefferson, who followed him, 
were both free thinkers; didn’t either of them have any 
religion, and they disbelieved in the nation issuing any¬ 
thing that referred to God, or God’s government of man. 
Now this woman that I am telling about, determined 
that there should be a revival of the National Thanksgiv¬ 
ing, and after working eighteen years, she succeeded. 
Now my question is, who was the woman, and who the 
President that resumed the Washington example, that has 
been kept up by every succeeding President to the present 
time? That is what I call a library question, and it is 
not my purpose to answer library questions. 

22. Were there no other times to come before the 
Lord, except those times mentioned, viz.: every morning, 
every evening, every month, these annual comings, the 
seventh-year comings, and the fiftieth-year comings ? 

Ans.—No other set times, but, of course, whoever com¬ 
mitted a sin, he could come at any time, when he com¬ 
mitted a sin; whoever because of ceremonial uncleanness 
could not come at the set time, could come at another 
time, but that isn’t a set time. A set time is one that is 
appointed; that must be observed always. 

23. What later annual feast was established by the 
Jews? Give an account of it, and the book in the Bible 
from which you get its history. 

Ans.—I leave that for you to answer. I want to know 
the name of the other annual feast long after Moses. 


430 LEVITICUS [xxm-xxv 

The Jews observe it now. They do not those others, but 
they do this last one. 

24. How many of the annual feasts are reckoned from 
the Day of Atonement? 

Ans.—Take the Day of Atonement, and you reckon so 
many days; you come to one, then reckon so many days 
and you get to another. Now I want to know how many 
days are reckoned from the Day of Atonement. All of 
them except the Passover and the Unleavened Bread, and 
they refer back to a special atonement of their own. 

25. All of these feasts, including the Sabbath day, the 
monthly, the annual, the seventh year and the fiftieth 
year, all of these were feasts of great joy except one. 
Which one was it? 

Ans.—You must look it up. 

Now these are the questions. This is unlike any other 
chapter that I will give; the object is (the answers are 
so easy) to get the reader to do the studying. So if any 
one asks you on the street, or you are to go to preach, or 
a man should step up and say: “ Give me an account of 
the Passover and the feast of unleavened bread, or the 
feast of the tabernacles, what about it ? ”—why, you are 
ready to answer, and to show the spiritual significance 
of it, and you will observe that all of these constitute 
a symmetrical sabbatic cycle. You cannot take away any 
one of them without breaking the symmetry of all of 
them. It is like the joints of a skeleton; every one has 
its place. 

26. Now I will give you another question: Who wrote 
the famous poem on the “ Holy Year ”? 

Ans.—With the Jews all the year was holy, and cer¬ 
tain days, recurring days, brought them to God for one 
purpose or another. This English poet that I am telling 
you about did not take the Jewish calendar, he took the 


xxm-xxv] COMING BEFORE THE LORD 431 

Christian calendar for his holy year. You surely know 
what book it was, and just as soon as you get to a good 
library, you get one and read it. While some of the 
sentiments in it can scarcely be sustained, yet the senti¬ 
ment of it is so pure, so holy, that it would be well for you 
to read it. 


IX 


THE LAND-SABBATH AND THE JUBILEE 

SABBATH 

Exodus XXIII, io, ii; Leviticus XXV, 1-7 

I. THE LAND-SABBATH 

W HERE do we find the text of the law of the 
land-sabbath ? 

Ans.—Exodus xxiii, 10, 11; Leviticus xxv, 
1-7. I’ll quote the text: “ And six years thou shalt sow 
thy land, and shalt gather in the increase thereof; but the 
seventh year thou shalt let it rest and lie fallow, that the 
poor of thy people may eat; and what they leave the beast 
of the field shall eat. In like manner thou shalt deal with 
thy vineyard, and with thy oliveyard.” That is the Exo¬ 
dus text of the land-sabbath, two verses of the twenty- 
third chapter. Being in that chapter it is an integral part 
of the covenant of Mt. Sinai, and that part of the covenant 
in which God and the nation are represented. You will 
find the Levitical text in the twenty-fifth chapter and 
from the first to the seventh verses. We begin at the 
third verse. “ Six years thou shalt sow thy field, and six 
years thou shalt prune thy vineyard, and gather in the 
fruits thereof; but in the seventh year shall be a sabbath 
of solemn rest for the land, a sabbath unto Jehovah; 
thou shalt neither sow thy field, nor prune thy vineyard. 
That which groweth of itself of thy harvest [that is, the 

432 




THE LAND-SABBATH 


433 


XXV ] 

volunteer crop] thou shalt not reap, and the grapes of 
thy undressed vine thou shalt not gather: it shall be a 
year of solemn rest for the land ... all the increase 
thereof shall be for food.” That is the original text of 
the law. 

2. What things are evident from the law itself? 

Ans.—(i) That in all agricultural departments there 
should be a suspension of work; that man must not plough, 
nor reap, nor harvest; (2) That every other man, particu¬ 
larly the poor, must have a right to go into the fields or 
into the oliveyards or into the vineyards and eat what he 
can eat of what the volunteer crop grows that year, and 
if they leave anything, then the beasts may go in and eat 
it; (3) That the purpose of the law is: First, to solemnly 
teach the people that the land was God’s. That the man 
had no absolute ownership of the land and he was simply 
a tenant under God; and second, the scientific basis or 
purpose of the law is presented in the passage in Exodus, 
that the land “ shall lie fallow.” Every good farmer will 
tell you that if you cultivate land to its extreme ability 
every year, you soon exhaust its fertility, and in order 
to preserve the product of the land, there should be a 
“ land fallow ” for that land in which you do not cultivate 
it. If you were in Virginia to-day you would see hun¬ 
dreds of farms, which used to be farms, that are now 
absolutely worthless. The reason is that by continuous 
cultivation they exhausted all the fertility of the land. 
So those are two reasons that are assigned, and the 
third reason assigned is, that the poor might have, at 
least once in seven years, the right to eat of the volunteer 
fruits of the earth; that, though the poor would not be 
allowed to go in and take away a basketful of fruit, and 
they would not be allowed to harvest, the rich and the 
poor just alike, in perfect equality before God, could go 


434 


LEVITICUS 


[xxv 

in day by day and eat of it; (4) That there was a penalty 
for not keeping this land-sabbath which you will find set 
forth in the following scriptures: Leviticus xxvi, 43, 
alluded to in Jeremiah xxv, n, 12, and xxix, 10; Daniel 
ix, 2; Zechariah i, 12, and vii, 5. 

3. What was the penalty? 

Ans.—That if they did not observe that land-sabbath, 
then God would remove them from the land, and keep 
them in captivity until there was a land-sabbath equal in 
extent to all of the land years that had been disregarded. 
As a matter of fact, for 490 years in their history they dis¬ 
regarded this law of the land-sabbath; that is, they stole 
seventy years, or one-seventh of 490 years. They robbed 
God and the land of seventy years’ rest; the land of rest, 
and God of His title. Now for each year that they with¬ 
held the observing of this land-sabbath they were kept 
in captivity. I have given scriptures that show how this 
law was enforced, viz.: by the seventy years of captivity 
in Babylon which kept them out of the land just exactly 
the time that they had withheld the observance of the 
land-sabbath in Canaan. 

4. What concurrent laws went with the land-sabbath? 

Ans.—There were three concurrent laws: (1) One 

releasing the borrowers from any collection of the debt 
owed during that year. There was the suspension of the 
collecting power of the land. Where a man had bor¬ 
rowed money the creditor could not collect it off him, nor 
any interest off him that year. 

(2) The second concurrent law was, that the Hebrew 
bond-servant was to go free that year, if he had sold him¬ 
self to a brother Hebrew or to an alien living in that ter¬ 
ritory and under the jurisdiction of the government. 

(3) And the third and most important of all of the 
concurrent laws was, that when the feast of taber- 


xxvJ THE LAND-SABBATH 435 

nacles came in the year of the land-sabbath, the whole 
Pentateuch was to be read to the people. 

5. Where do you find the text of the law concerning 
the release of the debtor and why this law? 

Ans.—I am going over each one of these concurrent 
laws particularly. We will take the first one. You will 
find the text of the law concerning the release of the 
debtor in Exodus xxi, 2-6, and in Deuteronomy xv, 12-18. 
That gives you the text of a concurrent law of the re¬ 
lease of the debtor, or rather the suspension of the power 
of the lender to collect payment of borrowed money. 
Why this law releasing the borrower, and what is the 
basis of this law ? As in that year all agricultural labour 
was suspended, and all income from crops was suspended, 
it was an equitable thing that the man should not have to 
pay debts or interest that year. That is the idea under¬ 
lying it. 

6. Give an account found in later history where the 
Jews re-covenanted to observe this law to release the 
Levite during the land-sabbath. 

Ans.—You will find it stated in Nehemiah x, 31. They 
had returned from captivity, and that captivity was be¬ 
cause they disregarded the land-sabbath. Nehemiah 
insists that the returned captives enter into a cove¬ 
nant with each other, that they would strictly follow that 
law. 

7. What the import of the second concurrent law, the 
law of the bond-servant? 

Ans.—I told you this special part should be brought 
out concerning the land-sabbath in Exodus xxiii, 10, 11, 
and in Deuteronomy xv, 12-18; that the Hebrew could 
not become a slave if he was sold into bondage; that it 
was not perpetual. In the seventh year he was to be re¬ 
leased, and if an alien had bought him in that seven 


LEVITICUS 


436 


[xxv 


years, he must release him, i.e., if living in the land 
subject to these laws. 

8. What was the penalty of disobeying these laws with 
reference to the bond-servant? 

Ans.—A most thrilling account of the penalty is found 
in Jeremiah xxxiv, 13-22. I quote some of that to show 
how God never forgot any of His laws that He had 
enacted: “ Thus saith the Lord, the God of Israel: I 
made a covenant with your fathers in the day that I 
brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, out of the 
house of bondage, saying, At the end of seven years ye 
shall let go every man his brother that is a Hebrew, which 
hath been sold unto thee, and hath served thee six years, 
thou shalt let him go free from thee; but your fathers 
hearkened not unto me, neither inclined their ear. And 
ye were now turned, and had done that which is right in 
mine eyes, in proclaiming liberty every man to his neigh¬ 
bour ; and ye had made a covenant before me in the house 
which is called by my name.” In other words “ You have 
disobeyed my covenant; you pretended to let those bond- 
men go and then by a small technicality of law re-in¬ 
volved them. [Now we come to the penalty.] Inasmuch 
as ye have denied liberty to whom I had ordained liberty, 
I will proclaim unto you a liberty but it will be a liberty 
to the sword, to the pestilence, and to the famine. I will 
give the bodies of those transgressors of the law, their 
dead bodies, to the fowls for meat.” 

9. Which the most important of the concurrent laws, 
where found, what the prominent idea and how does 
the provision of it compare with modern methods, 
etc.? 

Ans.—The most important of the concurrent laws is 
the provision for reading the whole of the Pentateuch to 
all Israel assembled together in grand convocation. It 


THE LAND-SABBATH 


437 


XXV ] 

is in Deuteronomy xxxi. It is the most remarkable 
Sunday School that the earth ever knew, commencing at 
the ioth verse of the thirty-first chapter: “ And Moses 
commanded them, saying, At the end of every seven 
years [toward the end of it], thou shalt read this law 
[meaning the whole of the Pentateuch]. When all 
Israel is come to appear before the Lord thy God in the 
place which he shall choose, thou shalt read this law before 
all Israel in their hearing. Gather the people together, 
men, women and children, and thy stranger that is within 
thy gates, that they may hear and that they may learn, 
and fear the Lord your God, and observe to do all the 
words of the law; and that their children, who have not 
known, may hear, and learn to fear the Lord your God, 
as long as ye live in the land whither ye go over the 
Jordan to possess it.” 

This is a remarkable statute. There is nothing like 
it in history. Notice the true conception of the Sunday 
School, viz.: men, women and children. Notice the 
length of that Sunday School; it probably did not last 
the whole year of the land-sabbath, for it commenced 
with the feast of tabernacles. There was no work to do; 
all agricultural work was suspended, and the nation 
gathered before God in Sunday School,—men, women 
and children; and in the hearing of the assembled na¬ 
tion the whole book of the Pentateuch was read and ex¬ 
pounded, and so expounded that even a child that had not 
known anything must know the law of God, and believe 
and do it. Now the question arises, Did they ever try 
to observe that law? Of course, when they did not keep 
the land-sabbath at all they did not keep that law. But 
we have one remarkable fulfilment. After their return 
from captivity in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah, they 
did carry out this law. You ought to read that account. 


438 LEVITICUS [xxv 

It tells you that they were gathered together, men, 
women and children, and that Ezra stood upon the pulpit 
(that is the only place in the Bible where the word, 
pulpit, is mentioned) and Ezra slowly read the law and 
the scribes around him explained the law. He slowly 
read a part, then came the explanation of that part; it 
lasted from an early hour in the morning to a late hour in 
the evening; and it was kept up until they got through 
with the Pentateuch. I am quite sure that it would 
produce a revolution to keep the people of the present day 
in a religious service that long. They have so many other 
things that they want to do, that every year they are 
losing the opportunity to hear the Word of God. I know 
a number of churches that count it a sin for the preacher 
to preach over fifteen minutes; I could give you the 
names of the churches that make it a rule that the ser¬ 
mon should not be over fifteen minutes. Now how are 
those people to know the meaning of the Word of God? 
One of the highest things in the world for the preacher is 
to be able to expound the Word of God from the pulpit. 
Now, you count up the services in the year, counting 
morning and evening, thirty minutes every Sunday, and 
it would require a man to be as old as Methusaleh ever 
to get through with the high places in the Bible from his 
pulpit, and as the multitude of people never hear the law 
of God except as it is announced from the pulpit, they are 
reared in ignorance of that law. The modern service has 
become ritualistic. There are about ten items on the pro¬ 
gramme of the Sunday morning service, and by the time 
they get to the sermon it is usually about fifteen minutes 
until twelve, and when the dinner horn blows they all 
want to go to dinner, and there is only fifteen minutes for 
the sermon. If the man goes over thirty minutes they get 
restless. What are you going to do about it ? How can 


xxv] THE JUBILEE SABBATH 439 

they compare themselves with those ancient people that 
gave so much time to the law of God ? 

II. THE JUBILEE SABBATH 

io. Where do you find the text of the law of the 
Jubilee sabbath? Explain it and give its application. 

Ans.—In Leviticus xxv, 13-28. I quote a part of it, 
beginning at the 8th verse: “ And thou shalt number 

seven sabbaths of the years unto thee,” seven times seven 
years (that is, seven land-sabbaths). Seven times seven 
is forty-nine, that is, forty-nine years. “ Then thou shalt 
cause the trumpet of the jubilee to sound on the tenth day 
of the seventh month; in the day of atonement shall ye 
make the trumpet sound throughout the whole land. And 
ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty 
throughout all the land unto the inhabitants thereof. A 
jubilee shall the fiftieth year be unto you; ye shall not 
sow, neither reap that which groweth of itself, nor gather 
the grapes in it of thy vine undressed.” You see there 
are two years which come together and there is no plant¬ 
ing, no pruning. And every man shall return unto his 
original possession of the house sold to his neighbour. 
That is, if a person bought his neighbour’s land on the 
first year after the Jubilee, he bought only the crop of the 
land for forty-nine years; he didn’t buy the land, but the 
fruit, for on the year of the Jubilee it went right back to 
the original owner. If he bought two years after the 
Jubilee he bought only forty-seven years, and so on down. 
“ According to the number of years after the jubilee thou 
shalt buy of thy neighbour, and according to the number 
of years of the fruits he shall sell unto thee. According 
to the multitude of the years thou shalt increase the 
price thereof, and according to the fewness of the years 
thou shalt diminish the price of it; for according to the 


440 


LEVITICUS 


[xxv 

number of years of the fruits doth he sell unto thee. . . 
And if ye shall say, What shall we eat the seventh year? 
behold, we shall not sow nor gather in our increase; then 
I will command my blessing upon you in the sixth year, 
and it shall bring forth fruit for the three years,’’ i.e., 
the land-sabbath year, the Jubilee year and the year fol¬ 
lowing until new crops were made. “ The land shall not 
be sold in perpetuity; for the land is mine. . . . And 
in all the land in your possession ye shall grant a redemp¬ 
tion for the land.” If a man was too poor to redeem 
that which he sold, his kinsmen had to redeem it for him, 
and if neither he nor his kinsmen were able to redeem it, 
it had to go back to him anyhow. 

ii. What are the essential particulars of this law? 

Ans.—(i) First of all is liberty. Suppose a man had 
sold himself to his Hebrew brother in the sixth year of 
the land-sabbath, a year before the Jubilee, then whether 
he had been able to redeem himself or not, in the year 
of the Jubilee he is free. (2) The next point of interest 
in the law is, that land could not be sold in perpetuity. 
After careful examination of this Jubilee and land-sab¬ 
bath business, I have reached this conclusion: that this 
law forbade both private and communal ownership of 
land. There is a political party that is trying to destroy 
private ownership to-day in our land by associational and 
communal trusts. Neither as a community nor as indi¬ 
viduals did the people own the land. The land is God’s, 
the earth in the fulness thereof. The only thing that the 
ownership gave to the country was the use of its fruits. 
They could not absolutely sell it because of the law which 
brought it back to him when the year of jubilee came 
round. Therefore, the individual did not have absolute 
private ownership, and the community did not own it. 
God owns it. (3) The third thought is that if a man in 


xxv] THE JUBILEE SABBATH 441 

extremity sold his land he could redeem it at any time. 
If he sold his own place and wanted to buy it back he 
could do it plus the improvements, and if he were un¬ 
able to redeem it any kinsman he had could redeem it for 
him. (4) The next relation to the law is the relation 
of the dwelling-house. If the dwelling-house was not in 
the walled city and he sold it under stress of circum¬ 
stances and kept the privilege of redeeming it within 
one year after that, that dwelling-house did not come back 
to him in the year of jubilee. Why? Because the value 
of a residence in a great city is not its value in land for 
any agricultural purpose, but its valuation comes from a 
crowded population in that place. For instance, suppose 
a man was living where an important street-car line 
now runs, and would not help build that street; would not 
help put down those pavements; would not help to get the 
street-car. When the street-car line and the pavements 
came, his property was increased fifty per cent., in this 
instance. He did not do it; other people did it. They 
built that street, those pavements and that street-car line. 
It did not come to them by what he did. (5) The next 
thought is concerning dwelling-houses in villages or in 
the country. A dwelling-house in the village or country 
was not counted as a part of the land, since the only use 
for it was that the land around could be cultivated and it 
could not be sold in perpetuity like a dwelling-house of 
the city. (6) There is another part of the law, that in the 
case of a Levite’s dwelling-house; because they had no 
dwelling-houses assigned to them, they had to hold both 
their dwelling-houses and their land in perpetuity. (7) 
The next was the effect of it. This is the law on slavery 
and refers to Hebrew slaves, whether sold to Hebrews 
or foreigners. 


442 


LEVITICUS 


[xxv 

12. What the signal of the atonement day in the Jubilee 
year, what its meaning and what hymn based on it? 

Ans.—On the Day of Atonement for the forty-ninth 
year, a great trumpet should be blown throughout the 
land; whether one lived in Jericho, Jerusalem or any 
other part of the Holy Land, on the great Day of Atone¬ 
ment, which was the tenth day of the seventh month, 
he would hear the trumpet sound, and the meaning of 
that sound was “ Liberty, liberty, liberty! ” A hymn 
has been written on that: “Blow ye the Trumpet, 
Blow! ” I will tell directly what it typifies, but before 
I get to that I want to discuss the land-sabbath generally. 

13. Cite examples of community ownership of land. 

Ans.—The Spartans of Greece were not allowed to sell 

their land, and among the Dalmatians it was the law that 
no matter what changes took place in the ownership of 
the land, every eighth year the land would be redis¬ 
tributed. A remarkable fact is cited by Prescott in “ The 
Conquest of Peru,” viz.: that under the rule of the Incas 
the land belonged to the nation and whenever a man 
married he was allowed a certain portion of land as an 
inalienable possession. What use has an old bachelor for 
land? He got that title to that land when he married. 
Now, up in Oklahoma, the old law was that each tribe of 
Indians, as a tribe, had a certain section of land set apart 
for the tribe. They did not own that land in severalty, 
but in community, and in order to sell a foot of it there 
had to be a legal gathering of the tribes and a treaty made 
by which the tribe would sell (not the individual) a piece 
of that land. A great many white men went in there and 
obtained a lease of land and in that way became very 
rich. They got a lease from the tribe. 

14. What the position of Jefiferson, George, Cooper 
and Goldsmith on this question? 


THE JUBILEE SABBATH 


44S 


xxv] 

Ans.—Mr. Jefferson has announced some doctrines on 
the land question. He says, “ The earth belongs to the 
living,” that is, the use of its fruits is for the living, not 
for the dead. It is a far-reaching statement. It was 
upon that statement that Henry George wrote his famous 
book, “ Progress and Poverty.” In the early settlement 
of New York vast stretches of country were given by 
sovereigns in Europe to what they called “ Patroons.” 
The sovereign placed the Patroon on the land and in 
process of time this land reached a fabulous price, and 
one man in land value could be worth half a state. This 
brought about revolutions in the state of New York in the 
ownership of that land; that no man had a right to claim 
such a section of the earth when multitudes of the people 
were homeless, and especially when they did not get that 
from the people but from some king who had no right 
to it. Fenimore Cooper has written three or four of his 
great novels on the land question. And he wrote them, 
too, mainly in the interest of the landholder, not the 
people. Goldsmith, in his famous poem, “ The Deserted 
Village,” immortalized himself. England has had her 
struggles and the result was that the yeomanry that con¬ 
stituted a large class, won its battles in wars of strife and 
left England with whole villages that had nothing but 
empty houses. It was upon that situation that this poem 
was written, in which occurs this strong language: 

“ Ill fares the land to hastening ills a prey, 

Where wealth accumulates and men decay.” 

There are immense portions of Scotland to-day, once 
populous, now deer-parks. A few men own a greater 
part of England and Scotland, and that is why the Ger¬ 
mans, Swedes and Italians swarm across the ocean to 
this country. I have talked with them and they said, 


444 


LEVITICUS 


[xxv 

“ Because my father nor my grandfather ever owned a 
foot of land; never had a chance to get a piece. Since 
we came over here we can easily buy some land. How 
proud we are when we can say, 4 My home, this is my 
home/ ” The great curses to-day that put in jeopardy 
the property of this nation, are those immense syndicates, 
ever buying. They bought up the coal lands; they bought 
up the forest lands; are sending agents to Porto Rico; 
are getting hold of the Philippines and of every valuable 
part of the world. Their agents are buying up lumber 
and you are sure to pay for it when you go to build a 
house. There isn’t any such thing in the United States 
to-day as a man being able to open a lumber yard as a 
private person. The combine on the lumber question is 
simply impregnable. 

15. What the great lessons of the Jubilee sabbath? 

Ans.—(1) The relation of God to the land and man; 
the land is His and the use of it goes to man. 

(2) The lesson of faith. “ What shall we eat in the 
seventh year if we do not plant a crop ? ” 

(3) In the continual equalizing and distribution of the 
property so that there should never be such a thing as a 
syndicate, a thing impossible under those Jewish laws. 

(4) The lesson in equity. There is no unfairness in 
this law. If a man bought a neighbour’s property, he 
didn’t buy it outright; he bought the fruit of it. If he 
redeemed it he had to pay back what had been paid 
for it. 

(5) The typical signification of the year of jubilee. 
Our Saviour in His sermon at Nazareth, after He had 
entered the public ministry, read a certain passage in 
Isaiah and He said that He was anointed by the Holy 
Spirit to preach a deliverance to the captives and the 
acceptable year of the Lord. So (a) it signifies the final 


xxvJ THE JUBILEE SABBATH 445 

repentance and restoration of Israel; (b) It points to the 
restoration of all things, at the second, final coming of 
the Lord; (c) the trumpets signify the preaching of the 
gospel, “ Blow ye the Trumpet, Blow.” You go out as a 
preacher and say, “ If Christ shall make you free you 
shall be free indeed.” You go to bring sight to the blind 
and hearing to the deaf; that is the significance of the 
trumpets. 


X 


THE LAMP OF GOD; BREAD OF THE PRES¬ 
ENCE; DEATH OF THE BLASPHEMER; PEN¬ 
ALTIES FOR MURDER, AND GREAT LAW 
PRINCIPLE 

I NOW discuss the twenty-fourth chapter of Leviti¬ 
cus, and the special themes of that chapter are: ist, 
The Holy Light, or The Lamp of God, Leviticus 
xxiv, 1-4; (2) The Bread of Presence, more commonly 
called the shewbread, Leviticus xxiv, 5-9; (3) The Death 
of the Blasphemer, Leviticus xxiv, 10-23; (4) The Penal¬ 
ties for Murder—killing a beast, a domestic animal, maim¬ 
ing a man; (5) The Great Law Principle; Breach for 
Breach, Eye for Eye, Tooth for Tooth, and Christ’s com¬ 
ment on it. 


I. THE LAMP OF GOD 

I. The first question is: What scripture enables us to 
understand the seven-branched golden lamp-stand, what 
its material and form, position, immediate purpose, light- 
supply, caretakers and symbolism? 

Ans.—Exodus xxv, 23-40, tells us of the form, material 
and position of both the lamp-stand and the table of the 
shewbread, according to a divine pattern given to Moses 
for both of them. Then Leviticus xxiv, 1-9, tells us how 
the oil of the lamp and the bread for the table were pre¬ 
pared, and gives direction for their renewal. Exodus 
xxxvii, 10-24, tells us how they were constructed, ac- 

446 


THE LAMP OF GOD 


447 


xxiv] 

cording to the previous directions of the Almighty. Ex¬ 
odus xxvi, 35, xl, 24, explain their relative position in 
the Holy Place—the lamp on the south side, and the 
table on the north side, with the golden altar of incense 
between. Then Numbers viii, 1-3, tells how this lamp 
was first lighted. Then Exodus xxvii, 20, 21, tells that 
they must burn all night long, from evening to morning, 
and Exodus xxx, 7, prescribes that they must be trimmed 
and filled with oil every morning by the high priest. 
Numbers iv, 4-15, tells us how the lamp must be borne 
on marches, carried by Kohathites. In I Samuel iii, 3, 
this lamp-stand is called the Lamp of God. The lamp- 
stand in Solomon’s temple had ten lamps instead of seven 
(I Kings vii, 49, 50) and was carried as spoil into Baby¬ 
lon and kept by Nebuchadnezzar, Jeremiah lii, 19. The 
lamp-stand in the temple restored by Herod, that is, the 
Jewish temple, was like the one in the tabernacle, having 
seven lamps and not ten. That was in the time of Christ 
and it was carried as spoil to Rome by Titus after the 
destruction of Jerusalem, and a pillar of a part of the 
arch still stands, on which is carved a vivid representa¬ 
tion of the bearing of that lamp-stand to Rome. The 
symbolism of the lamp-stand may be learned from the 
following scriptures: Zechariah iv, 1-14; Revelation i, 
12, 13, 20; ii, 5; xi, 3, 4. Now, that answers the first 
question, viz.: What are the scriptures that enable us to 
understand this lamp-stand? Now, if you will master 
this answer with great care, it will save you a great deal 
of trouble and investigation, both Scriptural and historical. 

2. What observations may be made on these passages 
of Scripture? 

Ans.—(1) The people themselves must furnish and 
prepare the olive-oil and the minister must serve in keep¬ 
ing the lamps in order. The object of that is to show that 


LEVITICUS 


448 


[xxiv 


there is always something- for each one to do, even in a 
case of a matter of God’s grace. 

(2) The second observation is that the candelabrum, 
or chandelier, represented originally the united congrega¬ 
tion of all Israel giving forth light from God, and illumi¬ 
nating the whole outer court containing the altar of sac¬ 
rifice and the laver, with its brightness. In other words, 
that light brought out clear visions of the sacrifice of 
expiation and the washings that followed. The prayer 
that the incense represented and the shewbread with its 
significance, that will be explained directly, and inasmuch 
as it also shone upon that great woven, triple-coloured 
veil that hid the Most Holy Place, it indicated that the 
true source of light was from within the Most Holy Place. 

(3) The third observation is, that according to Zecha- 
riah, the olive-oil represented the grace of the Holy 
Spirit that keeps the light, which Israel casts forth, al¬ 
ways alive. In the vision he saw this lamp-stand and 
the question came up in his mind, “ Whence comes the 
supply of oil that keeps these lights shining?” and then 
he saw on either side of it an olive tree, and from the 
olive tree went a pipe that mysteriously conducted the 
oil from the olive tree into the bowls of the lamps, and 
in connection with that it is said, “ Not by might nor by 
power, but by my Spirit, is anything accomplished.” 

(4) The fourth observation is in the New Testament. 
According to Revelation, each lamp-stand represented a 
particular church of Jesus Christ, and each light of the 
seven represented a particular member of the church. 
When John saw that vision of the seven of those golden 
candlesticks, each one of them with seven lights, he saw 
forty-nine lights grouped on seven lamp-stands, and 
Jesus explained to him that the seven lamp-stands of 
seven lights are to represent the seven churches in Asia. 


THE LAMP OF GOD 


449 


XXIV ] 

All of the churches represented the light that shines upon 
the world. That is the object of the book of Revelation 
and that is the key-passage in the book; that this whole 
world shall one day be illumined by the light that passes 
out from the churches of Jesus Christ. Those who have 
read my book on Revelation will never forget the prom¬ 
ises and the glorious perpetuity of the church and whence 
the power comes that sustains the church, of which Jesus 
said, “ Ye are the light of the world; let your light so 
shine before men, that, seeing your good works, they may 
be constrained to glorify God.” Now as Aaron continued 
every day to trim and re-supply the oil in those lamps, 
so in that picture of symbolism there is a picture of 
Jesus Christ in the dress of a high priest, moving among 
the churches, keeping the lamps trimmed and burning, 
and the Holy Spirit supplying the means of light. Jesus 
speaks of it immediately, and He says, “ Hear ye what 
die Spirit saith to the churches.” 

(5) The last observation is the important lesson on the 
grouping of the lights on one lamp-stand versus indi¬ 
vidualism. See Christ’s words: “ No man when he 

lighteth a lamp putteth it under a bushel, or under the 
bed, but he puts it on a lamp-stand.” The lesson is when 
God commanded the light to shine out on the darkness of 
the world, He made it our duty, when we make a pro¬ 
fession of religion, to put our light with the other lights, 
group them. In other words, its great teaching is on the 
obligation of the converted man to become a member of 
the church and not try to run the life of a free lance, as 
many of them try to do. Group the lights! Now there 
is a law of physics that what one thousand men can’t do, 
working one at a time, twenty men can do by uniting their 
forces. So if all the lights were scattered over the wide 
world, there never would be a light much more than a 


450 


LEVITICUS 


[xxiv 

glow-worm, but if they are gathered together, they can 
be seen. If you were to divide the sun into its atoms and 
distribute them over space, you might produce a kind of 
a milky-way, but never such a great light as when all 
these atoms are gathered into one great orb. The teach¬ 
ing is, group your lights. 

II. THE BREAD OF THE PRESENCE 

3. What was the material of the bread ? 

Ans.—Fine flour baked into a loaf without leaven. 

4. What was the number of the loaves of the shew- 
bread ? 

Ans.—Twelve loaves, representing the twelve tribes of 
Israel. And these twelve loaves were put upon that 
table; the shewbread on the table stands in two rows, six 
there and six there, just to your right as you enter the 
Holy Place. 

5. What accompanied it? 

Ans.—On each was a little golden cup or spoon holding 
frankincense representing prayer. The order for the 
building, the constructing, or fashioning rather, of these 
little golden spoons or bowls, you find in the scripture 
from Exodus that I gave you. 

6. How often were these loaves of bread to be re¬ 
moved ? 

Ans.—They stayed there just a week, but every Sab¬ 
bath the high priest removed them. 

7. What disposition was made of this material of bread 
and these bowls of frankincense when they were removed 
once a week? 

Ans.—The priests were allowed to eat the bread which 
had been before God a week; nobody else was allowed to 
eat it. They could only eat it after it had been replaced 
by fresh bread. They kept the frankincense as a me- 


xxivJ BREAD OE THE PRESENCE 451 

morial and it was then burned and went up before God. 

8. What is the meaning of that bread? 

Ans.—It means continual consecration of united Israel 
to the service of God. The continual putting in of a 
fresh supply when the bread was not fit to remain shows 
that it was to be continual; that under the consecration 
to divine service we stand continually in the presence of 
God, hence the name of the bread, “ the bread of the 
presence,” or “ bread of the face ” literally. And the 
meaning of frankincense is (frank-incense, call it in¬ 
cense if you want to call it that) that it always represents 
prayer. In other words, that there can be no consecration 
unless there is prayer, no continued consecration without 
continued prayer. 

9. What is the meaning of the grouping of the loaves ? 
Why wouldn’t one loaf serve? Why twelve? 

Ans.—It represents the united consecration of the 
whole people versus individualism, or going off at a 
tangent. 

10. What was the symbolism of this bread of the pres¬ 
ence? What did it indicate or foreshadow? 

Ans.^-Christ in His entire consecration of obedience 
to God through which we obtain our redemption, so that 
He could say, “ I am the bread of life; I am the bread 
that comes down from heaven.” 

11. What historic incident in connection with the shew- 
bread is cited by our Lord ? 

Ans.—The incident concerning David when he fled 
from Saul; hungry, starving, he came to where the high 
priest was and where the tables were, and being hungry 
he ate of the shewbread which was for the priest to 
eat, that is, he ate the bread when it had been removed 
and fresh bread substituted. In other words David got 
into that supply of removed bread and he ate it. And 


452 


LEVITICUS 


[xxiv 

the Lord said, “ Thou shalt have mercy,” or, in other 
words, that there were exceptions to the letter of the law, 
just as the Sabbath law, “ Thou shalt do no work.” The 
Lord said, “The priests work on the sabbath day and 
there is no objection.” The command of God is that no¬ 
body but a priest can eat the shewbread, but if you can 
violate the Sabbath law by taking the sheep out of the 
ditch, you can execute mercy to a starving man by 
allowing him to eat of the shewbread. 

III. THE BLASPHEMER 

12. State the history of the blasphemer, his sin, punish¬ 
ment, and what the punishment. 

Ans.—We come to one or two items of history in this 
book of Leviticus. For example, the death of Aaron’s 
sons when they offered strange fire and here the death of 
this blasphemer. The case here is this: An Israelite 
among them was the son of a Jewess who had married an 
Egyptian. This half-breed got into a fight with one of 
the full-breeds and as he did not have so much religion 
as the full-breed, he cursed the name, the Holy Name of 
Jehovah, while he was fighting. That was blasphemy. 
He was instantly arrested and his case brought before 
God; and God said that every man that was a witness to 
this transgression must come and lay his hands on his 
head and then the witnesses stoned him to death. 

13. Etymologically, to what kind of offence is blas¬ 
phemy limited? 

Ans.—According to its etymology, it must be an 
offence of the speech. Look up the meaning of that word 
blasphemy, and you will see that it must be an offence of 
speech. It must be something said; it must be something 
evil against God. Now, literally, that is blasphemy. 

14. What wider meaning does it bear? 


OTHER PENALTIES 


453 


XXIV ] 

Ans.—As Dr. Greenleaf, in his “ Testimony of the 
Evangelists,” shows, blasphemy, as thousands of other 
words, took on a broader application than just that defi¬ 
nition. In other words, one could blaspheme in thought 
if he thought evil against God; if he painted, carved or 
indicated in any irreverent way; had an evil thought 
without saying a word. All this is in the development 
of the word and becomes, quite naturally, a part of its 
meaning. 

IV. OTHER PENALTIES 

15. What the penalty for murder ? Maiming? Killing 
a beast? 

Ans.—These three offences are mentioned in this con¬ 
nection. Having shown that the blasphemer must suffer 
capital punishment by stoning, then in that connection it 
is stated that if a man kill his neighbour, he should suffer 
death, and then adds: “If you maim your neighbour; 
if you put out his eye, he may put out your eye; if you 
cut off his nose, he may cut off your nose; if you break 
his leg, he may break your leg.” If he maimed him, 
whatever the maiming that he did to him was to be done 
to the offender. That is the law of the state showing what 
must be done to the offender. And the third offence was 
the killing of a beast, not for food, not for sacrifice, 
but if one went out and tried to bridle a horse and he 
jerked his head away and he got mad and got a gun and 
killed the horse, that is what it means. The penalty in 
this case was, he must make good. He must put another 
horse of equal value in the place of one that he killed. 

16. How is the system of Mosaic penalties expressed 
in a legal phrase and Christ’s comment on it? 

Ans.—The legal phrase, “ A breach for a breach, an 
eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,” that is, whatever in- 


454 


LEVITICUS 


[xxiv 

jury you inflict that should be inflicted on you. What 
was Christ’s comment on that, and did He in the New 
Testament revoke that law? Let me quote it to you and 
see. It commences: “ Ye have heard that it hath been 
said, A breach for a breach, an eye for an eye, and a 
tooth for a tooth, but I say unto you, Resist not evil, and 
if one smite you on the right cheek, turn the left cheek 
and let him smite you there, and if one compel you to go 
a mile, go two.” Christ says just before that He came not 
to destroy the law but to fulfil it, and this injunction 
about the eye for eye and the tooth for the tooth ex¬ 
pressed the most equal justice possible, but it was pre¬ 
scribed by the state, and here were the Jews applying it 
individually. Now Christ, speaking to them individually, 
finds that they had taken the administration of justice 
into their own hands, and that rather than do that, they 
had better turn the other cheek. Dr. Broadus in his com¬ 
ment on the Sermon on the Mount, brings out very 
clearly those Hebrew laws that seem to express impossi¬ 
bility. He shows what they rather mean in such cases. 

17. What is the meaning of the phrase, “ must bear his 
iniquity ” ? 

Ans.—This referred to that blasphemy, a violation of 
the law of God. “ Now he must bear his iniquity,”— 
what is the meaning of this? Always throughout both 
Old Testament and New Testament that means he must 
pay the penalty of the offence, and so in its application to 
Christ, when it is used in the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah, 
“ He bore the iniquity of man,” that means the payment 
of the penalty, or as Peter expresses it in his letter, “ He 
bore our sins on the cross,” that is, He paid the penalty 
for our sins on the cross. Now don’t forget the meaning 
of that word “ bear.” Trace it through both Testaments, 
and see that it means, “ pay the penalty.” 


XI 


THE PROMISES AND THREATENINGS OF 

THE COVENANT 

Leviticus XXVI 

W HAT is the lesson? 

Ans.—Leviticus xxvi. 

2. What the theme? 

Ans.—The promises and threatenings of the cove¬ 
nant. 

3. What the relation of this chapter to the entire 
Sinaitic covenant? 

Ans.—It is its proper conclusion. 

4. Why, then, another chapter? 

Ans.—To show how vows not commanded in the 
covenant should be regulated if voluntarily made. 

5. But as tithes are commanded in the covenant, why 
introduce a section on that in connection with voluntary 
vows ? 

Ans.—The section on tithes is introduced in that con¬ 
nection merely to regulate the voluntary feature of tithes, 
namely, how certain tithes may be redeemed at the option 
of the tithe giver, so that the insertion of the tithe matter 
just here does not vary from the voluntary feature of the 
chapter. 

6. Show how this chapter of Leviticus becomes a re¬ 
markable apologetic. 

Ans.—(1) All the rest of the Old Testament and all 

455 


456 


LEVITICUS 


[xxvi 

the New Testament continue the notable prophecies in 
this chapter concerning the Jews as a people and their 
land, thus establishing the structural unity of the entire 
Bible. The later development of the line of prophetic 
thought in this chapter, in later books of the Bible, demon¬ 
strates the early writing of the book of Leviticus and the 
necessity of its having been a part of the Sinaitic cove¬ 
nant. 

(2) History for more than three hundred years has 
verified the promises of this chapter and still continues 
the verification. 

7. Elaborate several points of this. 

Ans.—(1) The prophecies themselves are too remark¬ 
able to have been the subject of guessing by human fore¬ 
sight, or when fulfilled at any time, to be accounted for by 
mere coincidence. 

(2) What is here said about the Jews, and its remark¬ 
able development or fulfilment in every succeeding stage 
of their history, would apply to no other nation in the 
history of the world, and this is equally true with refer¬ 
ence to the destiny of the land which they occupied under 
the terms of the covenant. Nothing like this can be 
derived in the history of any other nation or land. It is 
egregious folly to try to get rid of the supernatural ele¬ 
ment in these prophecies by trying to date the writing of 
this book in the times of the exile, or even in Christian 
times, since these prophecies are not actually and evi¬ 
dently fulfilled at the present time and provide for a 
reach to the end of time. Nothing like this can be found 
in the books of any other religion. For example, suppose, 
for argument’s sake, we assume that the book of Levit¬ 
icus was written in the time of the exile, or later, then 
how can the prophecies of Jeremiah alone be accounted 
for, touching the seventy years of bondage to Babylon, in 


xxvi] PROMISES AND THREATENINGS 457 

order that the land might rest for the part demanded in 
the 490 years of antecedent history? 

8. What the express condition of all these promises 
and threatenings? 

Ans.—Obedience or keeping the covenant on the part 
of the people insured the fulfilment of all the promises, 
while disobedience or breach of the covenant on their 
part was followed invariably and exactly by the venge¬ 
ance threatened. This, in every stage of their national 
life, is there fully verified by history, or there is no such 
thing as history. 

9. Analyze and summarize the promises. 

Ans.—(1) Regular seasons and abundant harvests are 
promised to obedience; (2) internal peace; (3) safety 
from destructive beasts and pests, which are accustomed 
to destroy the flocks and herds and crops, and under cer¬ 
tain conditions, man himself; (4) Absolute defence from 
external enemies, and supernatural victory over them on 
the field of battle; (5) Marvellous increase of population; 
(6) And most important, God’s tabernacle would be 
fixed among them and His abiding presence as cove- 
nant-God, ever bestowing spiritual blessings, fully 
assured. 

10. State some remarkable features of these promises 
and their spiritual application. 

Ans.— (1) It was promised that the threshing shall 
reach unto the vintage, and the vintage unto the sowing 
time, and that they should eat old stores long kept, and 
then have a surplus to remove in order to make place for 
the new harvest. The spiritual application of these re¬ 
markable promises may be found in the prophecy of 
Amos ix, 13, which says, “ Behold, the days come, saith 
Jehovah, that the plowman shall overtake the reaper, and 
the treader of grapes him that soweth seed; and the moun- 


458 


LEVITICUS 


[xxvi 

tains shall drop sweet wine, and all the hills shall melt. 
And I will bring back the captivity of my people Israel, 
and they shall build the waste cities and inhabit them.” 
If you wish to see the spiritual significance of this proph¬ 
ecy of Amos, then study Spurgeon’s great sermon on 
revivals, which takes for its text Amos ix, 13. The 
thought is that an obedient church living in connection 
and close with God, will live in a state of continuous re¬ 
vival. There will be no interval between sowing and 
reaping. Planting new seed and reaping harvest from 
seed already planted, will go hand in hand every Sunday. 
Like a tree whose foliage never dies and which con¬ 
tinually bears buds, blooms and fruit in every stage of 
development, and fruits fully ripe at any time. 

(2) One of these promises is that five shall chase a 
hundred and a hundred shall chase ten thousand. The 
history of the Jewish people teems with illustrations 
of these remarkable promises. Gideon and his band of 
three hundred, with trumpets, lamps and pitchers, dis¬ 
comfiting and putting to utter rout an army; Jonathan 
and his armour-bearer coming by night on a great army 
and through a God-given panic sent among the enemy, 
put them to flight; the first book of the Maccabees shows 
many instances of like nature, under the leadership of 
Judas Maccabeus. We will compare these incidents with 
the saying, “ One with God is a majority.” 

11. Analyze and summarize the threatenings. 

Ans.—(1) In general, they are the reverse of the 
promises; disease succeeds health; crops either fail or are 
eaten by the enemy; flocks and herds are destroyed by 
wild beasts or become the spoil of the adversary; God’s 
face is against them, and the enemy triumphs over them; 
instead of five of them chasing one hundred, they become 
panic-stricken and flee when none pursueth, and when in 


xxvi] PROMISES AND THREATENINGS 459 

captivity the fall of a leaf shall strike them with sudden 
terror. 

(2) These threatenings contemplate frequent or con¬ 
tinuous breaches of the covenant, to be followed by four 
ascending series of vengeance ever increasing the extent 
and intensity of the punishment. These series alone as to 
the ascending grades of vengeance on those who continue 
incorrigible, are worthy of profoundest study. They are 
all characterized by the number seven, the sacred number 
of perfection, each series will have its seven strokes, the 
last culminating in a climax of unspeakable disaster. 
By turning to your Bibles you will find this first series in 
verses 18-20; the second series in verses 21, 22, and this 
last is the climax, which will fill up the measure of both 
the iniquity and the punishment of the Jewish nation. 

12. What follows this most remarkable denunciation of 
long-continued tribulation upon the Jewish people? 

Ans.—There is a glorious promise of their penitence 
brought about by the supernatural power of the Holy 
Spirit, followed by their restoration and salvation as a 
nation. The promises of this ultimate salvation of the 
Jewish people, as set forth in verses 40-45 of this chap¬ 
ter, place their redemption entirely with God’s grace and 
His own remembrance of the covenant which they have 
so often broken. If we want to understand just how this 
most remarkable future event this side of the judgment 
seat of Christ will occur, we have only to study the fol¬ 
lowing passages of Scripture: Isaiah lxvi, 8, which 
foretells the unique event of a nation born in a day; 
Ezekiel xxxvi and xxxvii, which, by a vivid illustration 
based on the imagery of the resurrection of the dead, 
show the power which brings about the marvellous 
event; then Zechariah xii, 9, and xiii, 1. The New Testa¬ 
ment passages are equally marvellous and confirmatory, 


460 


LEVITICUS 


[xxvi 

for example, our Lord’s great prophecy shows when this 
tribulation of the Jews shall end, Luke xxi, 24, and in 
Paul’s still more remarkable discussion, Romans xi, 25- 
36. The last verse of that chapter, 46th, shows that this 
is a proper conclusion to the Sinaitic covenant. 


XII 


REGULATION OF VOWS 
Leviticus XXVII 

T HE theme is, The Regulation of Voluntary Vows, 
not the prescription of vows, but the regulation 
of them. 

i. Of what does this chapter consist? 

Ans.—It is really a treatise on persons, animals, houses 
and lands vowed to God, and the commutation of these 
vows. You know what the word “ commutation ” 
means. If you vow a certain house, you may substitute 
for that house a valuation that the priest will put upon it. 
That is a commutation of the vow, or taking an equiva¬ 
lent in the place of the vow. So that it consists of a 
treatise of persons, animals, houses and lands vowed to 
God and the commutation of them. 

2. Did Mosaic legislation institute or prescribe these 
vows ? 

Ans.—No; it merely regulated a prevailing custom of 
making vows long anterior to Moses. 

3. Cite the more important scriptures touching the 
vows. 

Ans.—You had better read them: Deuteronomy 
xxiii, 21, 22, reads as follows: “When thou shalt vow 
a vow unto the Lord thy God, thou shalt not be slack to 
pay it; for the Lord thy God will surely require it of 
thee; and it would be sin in thee. But if thou shalt for- 

4G1 


462 LEVITICUS [xxvii 

bear to vow, it shall be no sin in thee.” Now this is an 
exceedingly important scripture. It says not to vow these 
voluntary things and break the vow, but if you do vow 
it, then it will be a sin if you don’t do it, except under 
regulations prescribed here and elsewhere. Numbers 
xxx, 2, reads: “ If a man vow a vow unto the Lord, or 
swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not 
break his word, he shall do according to all that proceed¬ 
ed out of his mouth.” Now I quote a passage for every 
preacher to preach a sermon on: “ Keep thy foot when 

thou goest to the house of God; and be more ready to 
hear than to give the sacrifice to fools; for they consider 
not that they do evil. Be not rash with thy mouth, and 
let not thine heart be hasty to utter anything before God; 
for God is in heaven, and thou upon earth; therefore let 
thy words be few.” (Now comes the particular part) 
“ When thou vowest a vow unto God, defer not to pay 
it; for he hath no pleasure in fools: pay that which thou 
hast vowed. Better is it that thou shouldst not vow, than 
thou shouldst vow and not pay. Sufifer not thy mouth to 
cause thy flesh to sin; neither say thou before the angel, 
that it was an error.” Now if you were in my position 
and knew my experience, you would recognize the impor¬ 
tance of that. For many years, ever since I was a young 
man (I have raised over a million dollars in that time), 
many of the brethren have been exceedingly “ promis¬ 
ing ” but that is all. I could call the names of some 
preachers that at every Association and every convention 
make conspicuous big pledges, and never under any cir¬ 
cumstances even write me a letter in reply to the notices 
when I write them. So that just as soon as I get pledges 
from these people, I turn them over and write on the back 
of them “ Nix ”; that is for a German word meaning 
“ nothing,” or the Latin phrase translated “ a voice and 


REGULATION OF VOWS 


463 


XXVII ] 

nothing else.” It is undoubtedly true that preachers are 
so zealous and earnest to help (for they realize better 
than anybody else the need of the work), that they can’t 
help pledging some to everything, that is, their good 
nature and the interest in the work make them feel it 
their duty to give, but there are good ones that modify 
the pledges for good reasons. The reason that I ask the 
preachers to preach on this is not to stop the pledging, 
for the work couldn’t go on without it, but to create 
a conscience on this. Now you must consider the third 
verse, that it is no sin to forbear to vow, but if you do 
vow, stand up to your word, as another scripture puts 
it, “ Blessed is the man that sweareth to his own hurt 
and changeth not.” I know some preachers that have 
sacrificed till it hurt, to faithfully redeem what they 
pledged. 

4. Cite notable instances of Biblical vows. 

Ans.—We will take them up in order. (1) The vow 
that Jacob made, recorded in the twenty-eighth chapter 
of Genesis, verses 20 to 26. When he waked up and 
thought of what he had dreamed, he was profoundly im¬ 
pressed and he made this vow, “ If the Lord will be my 
God and keep me in the way that I should go, then this 
stone that I put up will be a memorial that I will build 
a house of the Lord when I return, and that I will give 
to Him one tenth of all that I receive.” Now that was his 
vow. I am much inclined to think that he kept the 
financial part of it, that he did honour God with his sub¬ 
stance from that time on, but that he deferred to pay a 
part of the vow that when he returned he would erect an 
altar to God at that place. He seemed to forget, or 
seemed not to count it an important thing. He had asked 
God to bless him and to keep him and he vowed that 
when he went back to that country he would erect an 


464 


LEVITICUS 


[xxvn 

altar on that stone. He went to another place, and then 
another, and great distress came on him. And God 
speaks to him and says, “ You move to Bethel and erect 
that altar.” That shows that God blessed him in the part 
that he performed and suffered him to be punished, not 
for the part he did perform, but for the part he did not 
perform. 

(2) The next notable case is the history of Jephthah’s 
vow. Jephthah was going out under hard conditions to 
fight a battle, and he vowed that if God would give him 
victory over his enemies, when he returned he would 
offer as a burnt-offering the first thing that met him; 
and the first thing that he met was his daughter, the 
apple of his eye. She met him with rejoicing, giving 
him a glorious welcome, with songs, that God had 
brought him safely home and victorious. Now the 
Scripture says that he did unto her according to his vow; 
that is usually called “ Jephthah’s Rash Vow,” and the 
merits of the case will be considered under a different 
head. I am just giving you examples, good and bad. 

(3) The next notable case is the case of Hannah. She 
had no children. Every Hebrew woman that was married 
desired children, as a blessing from God. She was 
scorned by other women because she had no children. 
And she went where Eli had the tabernacle, and while 
praying she made this vow to God, that if He would 
give her a son, she would give the whole life of that son 
to the service of God, and God gave her Samuel, and she 
did give Samuel to the service of God, and he was the 
most illustrious man of his age. 

(4) Another remarkable case is the case of Saul; that 
you will find in I Samuel xiv. In the heat of battle, 
while the enemy were giving way and Saul and his men 
were in vigorous pursuit, he vowed that he would put to 


REGULATION OF VOWS 


465 


XXVII ] 

death any man that tasted food until the enemy was 
routed. His own son, Jonathan, one of the noblest young 
men, didn’t hear his father make that vow, and he was 
always at the front and he saw a honeycomb, and then 
touched it to his lips to refresh himself. It was told to 
Saul and he would have killed his own son, but the people 
rose up en masse and said, “ Jonathan shall not die,” 
and Saul’s plan was thwarted. 

(5) The next case that I cite is the case of Herod, 
mentioned in Matthew xiv, 9. Herod was so charmed 
with the dancing girl, the daughter of his wife, not his 
own child, however, that he promised to give her any¬ 
thing she would ask for, and she asked, as her mother 
desired her to do, for the head of John the Baptist. 
Herod was exceedingly sorry, but for his oath’s sake, he 
complied with his vow, and the girl took the head of 
John the Baptist on a dish to her mother, and Josephus 
says that she took a bodkin and kept thrusting it through 
the tongue of John the Baptist and saying, “ You will 
never get to say again that we are living in sin.” 

(6) I mention another vow. Forty Jews entered into 
a vow that they would neither eat nor drink until they 
had killed the apostle Paul. That was frustrated by 
Paul’s nephew and the courage of the captain of the 
Roman troops. Now, I have cited a few vows, some of 
them praiseworthy, some of them rash and some of them 
horrible. 

5. In regulating these vows what is prohibited in this 
twenty-seventh chapter ? 

(1) Vowing without capacity to vow—for instance, 
a girl making a vow when she is subject to her father’s 
authority. That vow is not considered binding on the 
girl if her father forbids it. She is held as not guilty of 
sin because she has not become of legal age. In the same 





466 


LEVITICUS 


[ XXVII 

way, the vow of a wife, unless she has her husband’s 
consent. If her husband refused his permission and 
she then didn’t fulfil it, she stood not guilty before 
God. 

(2) Vowing things that are already God’s. Now sup¬ 
pose you vowed the firstborn, that is God’s already. 
Suppose you vow tithes. Tithes are already the Lord’s. 
You have not the right and it is prohibited here to make 
a vow touching a thing which is really not yours; it is 
already the Lord’s. 

(3) The third thing prohibited is, making a vow that 
in its fulfilment will violate a law of God. These vows 
are voluntary, but God has never left it to our will to 
violate His law, and Jephthah ought to have had sense 
enough to have seen that he should not ofifer his daughter, 
because the law prohibited it and that it would violate 
God’s law. So in the case of Herod. What if he did 
agree to give even to the half of his kingdom, he did not 
mean to agree to take human life. It was a sin against 
God to kill John the Baptist, and he ought to have said, 
“ No oath shall bind me to take human life. I said I 
would give you to the half of my kingdom, but I did not 
say that I would make myself a criminal in the sight of 
God.” A notable case of this our Saviour refers to when 
He sees the Pharisees dodging the law by misuse of vows 
and thereby refusing to take care of their parents. He 
says, “ The law of God says, Thou shalt honour thy 
father and mother,” and a child can’t get from under that 
law. Paul repeats the law in one of his letters that any 
child born is under obligations to take care of his old 
father and mother when they are helpless. They said, 
“ It is Corban,” that is, “ it is devoted to God, and on 
account of that I cannot help my old father and mother.” 
That is a fine illustration that no one is authorized to 


xxvii ] REGULATION OF VOWS 467 

either make or keep a vow that will violate the plain law 
of God. 

6. What the chief object of this lesson? 

Ans.—The chief object of this lesson is that when 
people in gratitude for past favours, or in expectation for 
future favours, make a vow unto the Lord, an equitable 
commutation may be made, and this chapter, without my 
going into the details of its exegesis, shows that if one 
vowed a person, like Hannah did—she vowed the person 
of her son—or if he vowed a house, or land, or anything 
of that kind, that if he came to the high priest at the 
door of the sanctuary a commutation might be made for 
that vow. What equity would demand for that vow 
was prescribed so that the law was very merciful in a case 
of a poor man. If he had made a vow that he was not 
able to fulfil, then the law was equitable in a case of that 
kind. 

7. What observations on Ecclesiastes, fifth chapter? 

Ans.—See answer to Question 3. 

8. What observation on the history of vows in the 
Christian era? 

Ans.—Well, if I were to write many books on this 
subject I could not tell you of the extravagance of the 
vows that have been made in the name of the Christian 
religion. Of all the foolishness of people that ever at¬ 
tached themselves to the Christian religion, extravagant 
vows head the list. The whole nunnery system arises out 
of that. A notable instance was related in the papers 
some time ago. A very wealthy woman, a Romanist, 
made a vow of an immense fortune to the Roman Church, 
and went to Rome itself, expecting to see an angel in the 
Papal chair, or something like that, and expecting further 
that she would realize her fondest hopes for her religion 
when she got there. But when she got there she saw such 


468 


LEVITICUS 


[ XXVII 

horrible things that she revoked her vow, and I think she 
was justified. That vow was made to God, but when 
she saw that, in her honest judgment, it would not be to 
God, she revoked that vow. The history of chivalry and 
of romance is filled with vows. For instance, a knight, 
before going into battle, would make a vow that if he 
came out all right in the battle, he would wear a patch 
over his right eye. It was no uncommon thing to see 
them disfigured this way in their bodies. Often when 
they were in a city, they would make a vow that they 
would blow the city up and themselves in it if certain 
things were done. Some of you have read the romance 
called “ The White Company.” 

9. What literature on this whole subject can be recom¬ 
mended ? 

Ans.—Dr. Sanderson delivered seven lectures at Ox¬ 
ford in Latin on this whole subject. The book is a classic. 
Charles I, the king of England, was so impressed with 
these discourses that he ordered them to be translated so 
that everybody could read them in English. That is about 
the best thing I know. 

10. When is a vow not binding? 

Ans.—When the performance of it would be a greater 
sin than its non-observance: for instance, cutting off the 
head of John the Baptist. A breach of that vow would 
have been more honourable than its performance. 


PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 


By B. H. CARROLL, D. D. 

President Southwestern Theological Seminary 

Evangelistic Sermons 

12mo, doth, net $1.00 

“ These sermons glow with a fervent 
evangelical spirit, and are the ripe fruitage 
of a half-century’s experience in Christian 
life and Gospel presentation. The author 
is a luminous and forceful writer and a 
clear and convincing speaker. This selection 
from among his sermons sets forth the 
essence of salvation in strong appeal to the 
intellectual and affectional man. They are 
models of evangelistic preaching.”— Chris¬ 
tian World. 


Baptists 

and Their Doctrines 

Sermons on Distinctive Baptist Principles 
12mo, cloth, net $1.00 

“ This volume is characteristic of the au¬ 
thor. It rings with the note of certainty. 
It supports every proposition with evidence 
and argument. The treatment of the 
Baptists in history is eloquent and thrilling. 
The principles we cherish are clearly de¬ 
fined. The struggle to maintain and to 
perpetuate those principles is narrated in 
vivid style. The reading of this book will 
clarify hazy views; it will strengthen feeble 
knees; it will indoctrinate the uninformed; 
it will be a tonic for the blood .”—Religious 
Herald. 



PROF. A. T. ROBERTSON, D.D. 


C.The Glory of the Ministry. Paul’s Exultation 

in Preaching. 12 mo, cloth. net % 1.25 

Dr . F. B. Meyer says: ”1 think it is the best of all your 
many books and that is saying a good deal. Its illuminating 
references to the Greek text, its graphic portraiture of the 
great Apostle, its allusions to recent literature and current 
events, its pointed and helpful instructions to the ministry 
combine to give it very special value to us all.” 

J. M. FROST, D.D. 

C,The School of the Church: Its Pre-eminent 
Place and Claim. 12 mo, cloth.$ 1.00 

Dr. Frost’s serious and careful analysis of the relation of 
the Sunday School to the Church, with the responsibility of 
the one to the other, together with the vast and imperative 
appeal of the child hosts, will give this volume a most im¬ 
portant place among the literature dealing with Sunday- 
school work. 

PROF. JOHN R. SAMPEY, D.D, 

C.The International Lesson System. The His¬ 
tory of Its Origin and Development. 

Illustrated, 12 mo, cloth. net $ 1.25 

Lectures delivered before the Southern Baptist Theolog¬ 
ical Seminary of Louisville, Ky. They trace the history of 
what has become a world movement for uniform and univer¬ 
sal Bible study among Protestant Sunday-schools in all parts 
of the English speaking world. The widening scheme now 
being attempted in connection with the graded series of 
lessons is an opportune time for the study of this growing 
movement. 

JAMES F. LOVE, D.D. 

C, The Unique Message and Universal Mission 

of Christianity. 12 mo, cloth. net $ 1.25 

"A great book. It is lofty in conception. It is cogent in 
argument. It is vigorous in thought and racy in style. It 
shows research, fairness, grasp, loyalty to the truth. It is per¬ 
meated with clear thinking, spiritual passion and missionary 
zeal. It reveals old truths from a new angle of view, puts 
new stimuli under all duties, and is a message for the times. 
We hope it will be widely read .”—Biblical Recorder. 










NOAH K. DAVIS, LL. D. 


C,The Story of the Nazarene, A popular life 
of Christ, both fascinating and devout. Illustra¬ 
tions and Maps. 8vo, cloth. .. net $1.25 

”A work of thrilling interest. The wonderful theme, the 
manner of its treatment, the admirable taste, the wide learn¬ 
ing exhibited, and, above all, the tender, devout spirit of the 
author all conspire to produce very high appreciation.” 

—Religious Herald. 

O. QLIN GREEN, D. D. 

C. Normal Evangelism. 12mo, cloth .. net $1.00 

’’Ought to be read by every pastor. Not only by him but 
by the members of our churches as well. The supreme busi¬ 
ness of the church is to lead the lost to Christ and then to 
train them for service after they have been led to Christ. 
This truth is the keynote of this book and will stimulate any 
pastor to strive for the practical application of this truth in 
his ministry .”—Baptist Advance. 

W. E. HATCHER, D, D. 

C. Along the Trail of the Friendly Years. A 

Retrospect of Men, Times and Plans. Illustrated, 
8vo, cloth . net $1.50 

’’The book came to my hand yesterday and I have neg¬ 
lected everything ever since. I have wept and laughed and 
rejoiced over its pages. It is rich in pathos and humor. It 
is filled with quaint philosophy. It is a classic in character 
delineation. In a word it is Dr. Hatcher over again. This 
note is written not in the interest of the author or the pub¬ 
lisher but in the interest of my brethren .”—Curtis Lee Laws 
in the N. Y. Examiner. 

«. John Jasper, the Unmatched Negro Preacher and 
Philosopher. Illustrated, 12mo, cloth, net $1.00 

"This is a wonderful book. Indeed it is one of the most 
wonderful books that I have ever read. I don’t know but what 
it is Dr. Hatcher’s masterpiece.”— Rev. J. M. Frosty D.D. 






















OCT 22 1913 













Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: May 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

111 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
( 724 ) 779-2111 











■IHIlllIlII 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

















































































